Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Great Western Railway Bill [Lords].
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords].
Rochdale Corporation Bill [Lords].
London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill [Lords].
Honey District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Tyne Improvement Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Bideford Harbour Bill,

Burgess Hill Water Bill,

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords],

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords],

As amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Oakengates Urban District Council Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oxford Corporation Bill,

As amended, to be considered To-morrow.

London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 28th April.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Abergavenny, Brighton, Colwyn Bay and Colwyn, Parts of Holland, Mitcham, Newton-in-Makerfield, Shoreham-by-Sea, and Stoke-on-Trent," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LASCARS (WAGES).

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of lascars sailing on British vessels and in what capacity; and whether he can state the wages paid to lascars in British currency?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The latest available information as to the numbers of lascar seamen employed in the British Mercantile Marine was given in an answer to the hon. Member for Southampton, a copy of which I sent to the hon. and gallant Member on the 24th March. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table containing information as to the wages paid to lascars and the approximate equivalents in English currency.

Following is the table:


Rating.
Rupees per month.
Approximate equivalent in English currency.


Deck Department:

£
s.
d.


Deck Serang
60
4
10
0


1st Tindal
37
2
15
6


2nd Tindal
30
2
5
0


Cassab
30
2
5
0


Winchman
28
2
2
0


Lascars
25
1
17
6


Lascar Boys
12

18
0


Bhandary
25
1
17
6


Topass
22
1
13
0


Engine Room Department:






Fireman Serang
60
4
10
0


1st Tindal
35
2
12
6


2nd Tindal
30
2
5
0


Donkeyman
28
2
2
0


Oilman
26
1
19
0


Fireman
23
1
14
6


Coal Trimmer
18
1
7
0


Bhandary
25
1
17
6


Bhandary's Mate
10

15
0


Steward's Department:






Butler
70
5
5
0


2nd Class. Butler
50
3
15
0


Baker
70
5
5
0


Chief Cook
70
5
5
0


2nd Cook
40
3
0
0


3rd Cook
25
1
17
6


1st Class Pantryman
40
3
0
0


Saloon Boys
30
2
5
0


Officers' Boys
30
2
5
0


Mess Room Boys
30
2
5
0


Butcher's Mate
25
1
17
6


Scullion
24
1
16
0


Saloon Topass
22
1
13
0


Bhandary
25
1
17
6

Note.—The foregoing rates are the rates ordinarily paid to lascar crews engaged at Calcutta, but slightly higher rates are sometimes paid to certain ratings in the steward's department. The rates for crews engaged at Bombay are slightly higher, for all ratings, than those ruling at Calcutta.

DEATH RATES.

Mr. B. SMITH: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to give more exact information regarding death rates in the Mercantile Marine service, he is able to base his calculations of the death rates on the average number of seamen daily employed through the year for 1920, 1921 and 1922?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; I fear it would be impossible to ascertain the average number of seamen daily employed throughout the year.

STEAMSHIP "TORONTONIAN."

Mr. B. SMITH: 17
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether it is proposed to take action against the Black Sea Shipping and Mercantile Company, of 20, Eastcheap, London, owners of the steamship "Torontonian," under Section 5 (4) of the Alien Restriction Act; whether he is aware that, since 11th November, 1923, until the present time, the crews of the "Torontonian" have been signed on at Constantinople, Alexandria and Salonica; whether the Consuls at Galatz and Constantinople have stated in the official log that the crews who were engaged and signed fully understood the agreement; and, if so, as they were all aliens, if he will explain in what way the seamen were made to understand the agreement;
(2) whether he can furnish any particulars of the mutiny in the Rumanian port of Constanza of sailors on the British ship "Torontonian," managing owners, the Black Sea Shipping and Mercantile Company, Limited, of 20, Eastcheap, London; whether he has any official information showing that the crew, composed mainly of Russian refugees, threatened to murder the captain, take possession of the ship, and escape to Russia; and whether the crew were arrested at the instance of the British Consul, Mr. Tottenham Smith, and a new crew signed on;
(3) whether the steamship "Torontonian," port of register Newcastle, has a passenger licence; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the ship is engaged regularly in transporting passengers from Constantinople to Russian ports and vice versa, who are rated on the articles at 1s. a month; what was the actual sum paid as passenger rates; whether, seeing that Section 5 (2) of the Aliens Restriction Act provides that no alien shall be employed on board a British ship registered in the United Kingdom at a rate of pay less than the standard rate of pay for the time being current on British ships for his rating, and that the average rate of pay for the crew of the "Torontonian" is only equal to £5 a month, he will state what action it is proposed to take to ensure that the correct standard of wages is paid?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to these questions is rather long,
and the hon. Member will, perhaps, agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

My attention had not previously been drawn to the case to which the hon. Member refers, and I am not yet in possession of full information regarding it. I find that crews were engaged for service in the steamship "Torontonian" at Constantinople on the 14th November, 1923, and on the 7th May, 1924, and at Salonica on the 24th October, 1924. The agreement for the first mentioned crew bears endorsements made at the British Consular Offices at Constantinople and Galatz, to the effect that the members of the crew engaged at those ports understood the terms of the agreement. The agreement with the second of these crews bears no such endorsement in respect of the men engaged at Constantinople, but it bears such an endorsement in respect of five men engaged subsequently at Marseilles. The agreement with the third crew has not yet been deposited with the Registrar-General of Shipping, the engagement presumably having not yet terminated. The ship has not a Board of Trade passenger certificate. As regards the wages of the crew, I am issuing instructions to the consular officers to inform the masters that the standard wages must be paid. I have no information on any of the other points raised in the question, but I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

LACE AND EMBROIDERY.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of the imports of lace and embroidery from France during the year 1914 and the last completed year?

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total quantity of lace imported into this country during 1924 from France; and if he can give figures for the corresponding period of cotton threads exported from this country to France?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer contains some figures I will have
it circulated, if the hon. Members do not object, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Imports consigned from France:


—
1914.
1924.



£
£


Cotton lace and plain net and articles thereof (except embroidery).
832,484
1,725,773


Silk lace and mixed (silk and other materials) lace and articles thereof (except embroidery).
299,407
343,236


Embroidery and needlework (except linen embroidery).
37,441
86,708

Exports consigned to France: The exports of "finished cotton threads" during 1924, consigned to France and registered as manufactured in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, amounted to 215,137 lbs., valued at £75,935.

FOREIGN COUNTRIES (TAXATION AND CONDITIONS).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is supplying to the Committees set up under the terms of the recent White Paper any official information as to taxation in foreign countries and conditions of manufacture there?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; but should I receive a request from a Committee for any official information that may be available I should naturally endeavour to supply it.

FOOD AND DRINK.

Major CRAWFURD: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if articles which enter into the cost of production of food or drink will be exempted from the operation of the safeguarding of industries proposals of the Government in the same way as articles of food and drink themselves?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; but full consideration will be given in every case to the effect which a duty upon goods to which the application relates might have upon the using industry.

Major CRAWFURD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the articles which enter into the cost of production
of food and drink are given these facilities, it must make nonsense of the Prime Minister's pledge?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In the first place that is a hypothetical suggestion; in the second place, the conclusions drawn from it are inaccurate.

RE-EXPORTS.

Mr. FENBY: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the loss of trade now arising in the re-export of foreign commodities owing to the imposition of duties under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and is he prepared to take action for securing that rebate can be obtained, especially in cases of split consignments, or the establishment of free ports?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I have no information as to the first part of the question. I would point out that Subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act already provides that on the exportation of goods on which Key Industry duty has been paid drawback equal to the amount of duty paid shall be allowed and, subject to compliance with Customs regulations, drawback is paid in respect of split consignments exported. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular case of difficulty and will communicate particulars to me, I will cause inquiry to be made.

GLASSWARE AND GLOVES.

Mr. FENBY: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether before coming to any further decision on the matter of appointing a committee to consider the imposing of a duty on imported fancy glassware, he would be prepared to receive a deputation from the silversmiths and electro-plate manufacturers of Birmingham, whose interests might be vitally affected by the imposition of any such tariffs?

Mr. RADFORD: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a requisition, signed by a number of the leading home trade warehouses, asking that a deputation should be received from them in connection with the application that has been made by the British glove industry for safeguarding of their industry; and, if so, whether
he has acceded to such request for an interview?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In the event of any application being referred to a Committee for inquiry, importers and users will have the opportunity to be heard so far as their evidence is relevant to the particular matters on which the Committee has to report; but I do not think it is necessary that they should be heard in order to decide if a prima facie case for inquiry has been established.

Captain BENN: Would it not be more fair to let them know when an application is being made and considered?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I think the balance of convenience is all the other way.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Would that apply to these manufacturers in places other than Birmingham or to the silversmiths and electro-plate manufacturers of Birmingham only?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My answer relates to the procedure generally.

IMPORTED SILK.

Mr. FENBY: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to announce his decision with regard to the appointing of a committee to consider the advisability of placing a tariff upon imported silk, whether pure or artificial; and, if so, whether the terms of reference to the committee will embrace silk when interwoven with cotton or used for the lining of wearing apparel?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) and others on the 17th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SISAL HEMP.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and value of sisal hemp imported into this country from all sources for the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Importers of hemp are not required to distinguish in their entries between sisal hemp and
other varieties of hemp, and I regret that, consequently, I am unable to furnish the desired particulars.

FREIGHT RATES.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 5 and 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the minimum freight rate for steel, wire and tools from Germany is 10s., whereas from England it is 21s., that with a small trial order of the value of four or five pounds English manufacturers have to pay about 25 per cent. of the value to the shippers; and whether he can undertake that this matter shall be investigated in order to relieve this handicap on English manufacturers:
(2) whether he is aware that the rate for certain goods direct from Liverpool to Bilbao/Santander was 40s. per ton, whilst the rate from Hull via Antwerp was only 30s. per ton; that the rate to Barcelona, Valencia and Alicante direct from Liverpool was 50s. per ton, whilst the rate via Hull and Antwerp was only 32s. 6d., and that, in this case, the goods were shipped on to the same British Conference steamers that they would have been loaded on to at Hull, so that the same shipping companies were obtaining 50s. per ton from Liverpool to Barcelona and only 16s. per ton from Antwerp to Barcelona; can he state what the reason is for this difference; and, if not, whether he will set up a committee of inquiry to investigate the reason why there is such a severe handicap on British exports

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The attention of the Board of Trade has frequently been drawn to the differences between the freights charged from Continental ports and those from British ports to the same destination. The examples given in the questions are, I am informed, substantially correct. The reason given is that Continental lines are able from various causes to carry at a lower cost than their British competitors, and British lines have to carry at the Continental rates if they are to secure any of the business from Continental ports. The matter is watched carefully by the Department, and chambers of commerce have been in consultation with shipping lines; and there are indications that the disparity between United Kingdom rates
and Continental rates is being reduced. In these circumstances, I do not think that it would be advisable to appoint a Committee of Inquiry.

COAL EXPORTS (RUSSIA).

Mr. BARKER: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government is aware that, during the year 1913, nearly 6,000,000 tons of coal were exported from Great Britain to Russia, whereas in 1924 only 37,630 tons were exported to that country; and whether, in view of the present widespread unemployment in the coalfields of this country, His Majesty's Government will now extend on a commercial basis the provisions of the Trade Facilities Acts to British-Russian trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that the exports of coal from this country to pre-War Russia in 1913, and to post-War Russia in 1924, were as stated by the hon. Member. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Western Isles on the 1st April.

Mr. BARKER: In view of the terrible condition of the coal trade to-day is it not high time the Government approached the Russian Government in reference to this matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. As a matter of fact the Russian Government sold last year a great deal more produce in this country than they bought produce of this country, and if the Russian Government wish to use some part of that balance for the purpose of buying British coal or British goods, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that we are doing a very substantial coal trade with all those countries which belonged to pre-War Russia, but which have now seceded from Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that is so. I have not the particulars of the trade here, but undoubtedly the hon. and gallant Member is quite right in saying that trade is going on with the parts which were in pre-War Russia, but are now outside Russia, whereas, owing to circumstances which are within the know-
ledge of the House and the competence of the Russian Government, it is not going on with Russia.

Mr. BATEY: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's first answer, are we to understand the Government do not intend to encourage the export of coal to Russia or to anywhere else?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The Government are anxious to encourage the export of coal, wherever they can, on sound lines.

SYNTHETIC INDIGO.

Major CRAWFURD: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the price of synthetic indigo in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and India in terms of pounds sterling per pound weight?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle West (Mr. Palin) on the 10th March. The quotations which I then gave were recent ones for ordinary quantities, but the prices in foreign countries are so diverse, and the sterling equivalents are so affected by variations in rates of exchange, that comparisons on the basis suggested would, I think, be misleading.

FRENCH PRINTING INK (IMPORTATION).

Captain BENN: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has given further consideration to the case of the firm of printers who were refused permission to import a French printing ink necessary for their business; and what decision has been arrived at?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In view of the representations made by the hon. and gallant Member, I considered the case carefully, but failed to find any grounds for overruling the decision of the Licensing Committee, who had given the case full and careful consideration.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of this decision a large order was lost to this British firm?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I am not. I went very fully into the case, and I am quite satisfied that the
Licensing Committee have followed their regular and proper practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON FOOD PRICES.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he anticipates that the First Report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices will be published before the Easter Recess?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I find that the consideration by the Royal Commission of their forthcoming Report has taken rather longer than was at first anticipated. I understand, however, that this Report is in an advanced stage of preparation and that it should be ready for publication in about three weeks' time.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has a draft Report been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman's Department and returned for correction or amendment?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, certainly not. A Royal Commission does not submit drafts of its Report to a Government Department. Its members report on the evidence as they find it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the moment that Report is presented to the Department it will be laid before the House?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That depends on whether or not the House is sitting. There will be no delay in the laying and publication of the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any method by which a seaman who has lost his kit and belongings owing to enemy action at sea during the War can now put forward a claim for compensation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The scheme for giving compensation for effects lost through enemy action during the War was closed on 15th October, 1922, and the only cases which can now be considered
are those in which there was an insurance policy under the Government scheme.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Is there no way by which a poor seaman who has not been able to enter his claim, may now register that claim when he finds out for the first time that such a claim is possible?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, there was first an insurance scheme; secondly, there was a free compensation scheme; then there was the Sumner Commission, and in adddition to that, there was the arrangement for belated claims.

Mr. B. SMITH: Has the sum of reparations which was agreed to between this country and the German Government ever been paid to the seamen?

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many seamen who are abroad and who do not read newspapers are not aware of these offers.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think it would be possible within the limits of an answer to deal with these matters, but my hon. and gallant Friend will recollect that, in the first place, there were advertisements under the Sumner Commission. Then it was urged, with some reason, that many seamen had not seen these advertisements, and, in consequence, belated claims were admitted, and a long period was allowed for them, and very full advertisement given of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

REGULAR AND TERRITORIAL SOLDIERS (COST).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War the cost, respectively, of a Regular soldier and a Territorial soldier for the last completed year prior to the War, and also for the year 1924?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The cost of a soldier varies with many factors, such as the rank and the arm of the Service. The cost (with numbers) of each of several types of Regular unit is given on page 26 and following pages of Estimates 1924–25, and similar information as regards the Territorial Army will be
[...]nd at the bottom of page 44. The Estimates for 1913–14 were not compiled on the same basis, and corresponding figures are consequently not available, but Appendix 18 of the Estimates for that year gives certain relevant figures.

TROOPS, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Colonel DAY: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of troops now stationed in Northern Ireland, and the purposes for which they are stationed there; whether it is proposed to withdraw any of the troops; and, if so, at what date?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of troops stationed in Northern Ireland on 1st March last was 4,676 all ranks. Troops are stationed in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, to discharge appropriate military functions. There is no intention at present of withdrawing them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great and very efficient body of special constabulary kept in Northern Ireland, and paid for by this House, and could we not withdraw some of the troops there., in view of the existence of this body?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. It is not proposed to withdraw anything at present.

TRAINING ON LOCOMOTIVES.

Mr. BROMLEY: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War by what authority, and for what purpose, members of the military forces of the Crown are riding on the footplate of engines on London and North Eastern Railway Company's trains?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Army personnel in question belong to the Transportation Branch of the Royal Engineers and are receiving instruction under arrangements with the railway companies which existed before the War and have since been renewed. The object of the arrangements is to give the officers and men valuable experience in certain branches of railway work which cannot be given on the military camp railways.

Mr. BROMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men may ride on the footplate for 50 years and not
have any knowledge, and that the only way to gain it is to take the work of the driver and fireman, when they immediately become a danger?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. I think the hon. Member is too pessimistic. The Army will learn more quickly than that.

MEDICAL OFFICERS.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, after allowing for Income Tax and the increased cost of living, the pay and pensions of medical officers, and particularly those in India, are smaller in purchasing power than in 1914; whether he is aware that this is the cause of the falling off in the number of entrants to the Royal Army Medical Corps; and whether he proposes to recommend adequate increases?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The falling off in the number of candidates for the Royal Army Medical Corps is due to several causes, with which I could not deal within the limits of a Parliamentary answer. I hope that it will be possible to find a remedy without undue delay.

SCHOOL FOR OFFICERS' CHILDREN, COLOGNE.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a school for British officers' children in Cologne is to be closed on 8th April; and, if so, what is the reason for this?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understand that a private school for officers' children at Cologne will be closed at the end of the present term, owing to the withdrawal of certain services which it has hitherto enjoyed free of cost. Schools for officers' children are not provided at the expense of Army funds, and it has been decided that the privileges in question could not properly be continued to this school.

POISON GAS EXPERIMENTS.

Mr. AMMON: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the 188 soldiers subjected to poison gas experiments at the Chemical Warfare Research Department since 1918 includes officers; and what were the number of officers and men, respectively, subjected to such experiments?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The total number of officers and men of the Navy and Army subjected to the tests during the period, in question is:

Officers
…
…
317


Other ranks
…
…
207

ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (OFFICERS' PAY).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the decision to pay corps pay from 1st January, 1925, to those officers of the Royal Army Service Corps who have passed the junior officers' course at the Royal Army Service Corps' Training College, he will make this corps pay date back to the date on which it was stopped to those officers who have held the necessary qualifications; and what is the reason for deducting the 5½ per cent. from corps pay which has not been increased, but which as a matter of fact is some 40 per cent. less than pre-War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The grant of corps pay to Royal Army Service Corps officers generally was not contemplated when in 1919 new rates of pay were fixed. The recent decision to grant corps pay to all Royal Army Service Corps officers who have passed the junior officers' course is a new departure. I regret that I cannot fix an earlier date for its introduction than the 1st January, 1925. The rate for the new qualification has been fixed at two-thirds of the rate for the higher (engineering) qualification in the Royal Army Service Corps, and is subject to reduction for fall in the cost of living on the same basis as the latter rate.

FORTIFICATIONS, SINGAPORE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has examined the question of new fortifications for the neighbourhood of Singapore, in view of the dockyard extensions taking place in that area; whether new fortifications will be required; if so, what will be the cost, and when they will be commenced?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am unable to add anything at present to the reply which I gave the hon. and gallant Member on the 17th March.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that these extensive alterations and enlargements of the dockyard are going on, and that fortifications are not being commenced at the same time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. They are under consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But is not that a very curious form of strategy?

Oral Answers to Questions — DUTCH SHIPBUILDING COMPANIES (BRITISH CAPITAL).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the extent to which British capital is invested in Dutch shipbuilding companies; and whether he will communicate it to the House?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no information on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LOCHBOISDALE PIER.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the owner of Lochboisdale Pier, in South Uist, is not fulfilling the conditions laid down in the Schedule to the Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1878, as to exhibiting lights from sunset to sunrise; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter, in view of the danger to shipping caused thereby?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The light in question was an "occasional" one, only exhibited when a vessel was expected. A Notice to Mariners regarding its discontinuance was issued by the Hydrographer to the Navy in April, 1024, consequent on the closing of the pier. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, with whom rests the decision, under Section 24 of the South Uist Pier Order of 1878, whether a light should be exhibited on this pier, that they consider such a light to be unnecessary and do not propose to direct one to be exhibited. They add that, in view of the condition of the pier, a light,
if exhibited, might tempt vessels to go alongside the pier at considerable risk to themselves.

LAND COURT REPORT, 1923 (APPENDICES).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 36.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the appendices to the Land Court Report for 1923 have not yet been published; and will he arrange to have them printed or cyclostyled as soon as possible?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): These appendices were published on Saturday.

SUNDAY FISHING.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 37.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is now in existence a statute forbidding the shooting of drift or ring nets from one hour after sunset on Saturday until one hour before sunrise on Monday between the Mull of Galloway and Ardnamurchan Point; and whether, in view of the prevalence of Sunday fishing by fishermen from other parts in the waters off the coast between Ardnamurchan Point and Cape Wrath, he will extend the operation of the existing statute so as to cover these waters also, and so abolish a practice which is at once obnoxious to the feelings of the fishing communities there and damaging their interests?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware that the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, forbids the setting or shooting of any herring net between sunrise on Saturday morning and one hour before sunset on Monday evening on the West Coasts of Scotland between the points mentioned. I have no power to extend the operation of the existing statute to cover the waters between Ardnamurchan Point and Cape Wrath.

Mr. MACPHERSON: If I introduce a Bill as a private Member's Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is given facilities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would like to see the Bill first.

EDUCATION FUND.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 38.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what will be the amount of money available for distribution to Scottish education authorities out of the
Scottish Education Fund for the year 1925–26; and how much of reduction or increase this will be as compared with the year 1924–25?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I anticipate that the amount available for the payment of grants to education authorities in Scotland from the Education (Scotland) Fund will be substantially the same in the year 1925–26 as in 1924–25, and will be in the neighbourhood of £6,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ANTHRACITE.

Mr. HARTSHORN: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of anthracite coal produced in the United States of America and Great Britain, respectively, during 1924; and what percentage of the total output was produced by machinery in each country?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): About 80,000,000 tons were produced in the United States and about 5,455,000 tons in Great Britain. The proportion cut by machines was about 1 per cent. in the United States and under 1 per cent. in Great Britain.

NON-FATAL ACCIDENTS.

Mr. HARTSHORN: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of non-fatal accidents in mines during 1924?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The number of persons disabled for more than three days by accidents in all mines (including mines under the Metalliferous Mines Acts) in 1924 was 197,111.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why, and under what authority, the returns for 1924 relate to accidents involving more than three days' disablement?

Colonel LANE-FOX: It was on the authority of my predecessor.

PROFIT AND LOSS, 1924.

Mr. HARTSHORN: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of undertakings in the mining industry worked at a loss and the number which made profits during the year 1924.

Colonel LANE-FOX: Particulars of the kind asked for by the right hon. Member are not ordinarily supplied to my Depart-
ment, but I think that in the present circumstances their publication would be interesting and useful, and I will see what I can do to get them.

BLAENAVON COLLIERY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the closing down of the pits at Blaenavon; and whether he will inquire what rates were levied in respect of these pits during the year previous to the suspension?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am unable to supply the information asked for in the latter part, but I have, communicated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who will make inquiries and inform the right hon. and gallant Member of the result.

COAL TRADING (SHEFFIELD CORPORATION).

Mr. STUART: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now give any information on the subject of trading in coal by the City of Sheffield during the period of coal control?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir. I find that during 1919 and 1920 about 14,500 tons of coal were delivered to the Sheffield Corporation by direction of the Coal Controller under a scheme for laying down reserve stocks in all districts. When coal became scarce in Sheffield, the corporation sold coal from their reserve stock to the merchants at a price which was fixed to cover the expenses of the corporation and to give a profit to the merchants whose retail price was also fixed. At that time prices were controlled and the episode obviously cannot be quoted as an instance of successful retailing of coal by a local authority.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to set up a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the whole matter of what took place in Sheffield?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I do not think there is any need for a Court, the facts are so obvious and plain.

Mr. WILSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that during the period of control the margin between the actual cost and price at the sidings, and what the merchants were selling it at, was 7s., altogether apart from the cost of cartage?
The 7s. included 1s. compensation to the merchants because they were not selling the larger quantity of coal that they were before, and for no other reason. In addition to the profit to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred there was 10s. per ton paid by the Corporation to the merchants—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—for the losses they were supposed to have incurred.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now giving information.

WAGES AGREEMENT.

Mr. TINKER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the position of the mining industry in regard to the termination of the present agreement between the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation; and, if so, will he indicate what he proposes to do?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I have been asked to reply. The position is that the present wages agreement continues indefinitely unless, on or after the 1st July, a month's notice is given by either side to end it. I am aware that the question of giving notice is being actively canvassed, but I am not going to assume at present either that notice will be given, or that, if it is given, it will be beyond the power of the coalowners and miners to negotiate a new agreement in the ordinary way.

Mr. TINKER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this question on the Adjournment Motion on Thursday.

TELEPHONES

Mr. STEPHEN MITCHELL: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he, is aware that some of the smaller concerns which employ men underground are not connected with the Post Office telephones; and if, in order that expert medical assistance and additional life-saving appliances could be more rapidly obtained, he will consider the advisability of making the installation of telephones in all mines compulsory?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am entirely in sympathy with the object of this proposal, and, for the most part, effect has already been given to it under existing
regulations; but it is hardly practicable to make it a rule without exception. There are small mines so isolated that the installation of the public telephone is impracticable, and, at others, a standing arrangement for the use of a neighbouring telephone in ease of need, meets the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH INDUSTRIES (BALFOLTR COMMITTEE).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state how soon the Report of the Balfour Committee on Industry with regard to the iron and steel trades is likely to be available; and, if there is no reasonable prospect of an early Report, will he, in view of the increasing unemployment in these industries, take steps to arrange for a conference between the Government and employers and employed in order that somthing may be done to meet the present position in this industry?

Mr. DIXEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the setting up of a Committee to inquire into the question of subsidisation in the engineering and shipbuilding trades?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Balfour Committee, which was appointed by my predecessor, was given wide terms of reference covering a large number of industries, of which iron and steel is one. I do not think it would be practicable to interfere with the general course the Committee is pursuing in the taking of evidence and the making of reports. I think the proposal that the Government should convene special conferences in different industries is unnecessary and undesirable. Such conferences are, in fact, taking place; and it is far better that these discussions should be arranged within the industries themselves. The Government are watching closely the economic and industrial situation in the trades to which the questions refer.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the future of employment in these trades is viewed with very great apprehension by all concerned, and, therefore, can he not do something practical to assist them in their present difficulties?

The PRIME MINISTER: One obvious thing would be that we should buy British steel.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Interim Report of the Balfour Committee is likely to be published, containing information about iron and steel on which they took evidence?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I do not know.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British steel is being sold cheaper on the Continent than here?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when the Irish Boundary Commission is expected to report?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to make any statement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there no sort of indication at all?

The PRIME MINISTER: No indication at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD AND SILVER CONTROL.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: 49 and 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he intends to allow the Gold and Silver Export Control Act of 1920 to lapse;
(2) whether he has any intention to amend the Currency and Bank Notes Act of 1914?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on the 26th March to the hon. Members for the Stroud Division (Sir F. Nelson) and Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby).

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Was the expression of views quite recently given by the Secretary for War the views of the Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not seen those expressions of opinion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have no doubt my right hon. Friend expressed himself in a carefully guarded manner.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Before the right hon. Gentleman gives a decision on this question, shall we have an opportunity of discussing the whole question in the House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have several times said—and it has met with a considerable measure of acceptance—that in the view of the Government it would be to the public interest that the initiative in this matter should be left to His Majesty's Government.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: In view of the fact that the employment of, perhaps, a quarter of a million of people may depend upon this decision, does the right hon. Gentleman suggest seriously that this House is not entitled to discuss it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly not. The House is entitled to discuss anything it chooses, but, in the exercise of that choice, the House, no doubt, will take into consideration very carefully whether the public interest would be advanced by such discussion, or retarded by it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that business in this country is seriously hampered by ignorance of the fact as to whether the Government is going to allow this Act to lapse or not. Time is short. Will the right hon. Gentleman make up his mind on the subject and inform the House accordingly.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have several times answered questions of the sort. While it is an exaggeration to say that the business of the country is being seriously affected, I am also well aware of the disadvantage of a prolonged and indefinite uncertainty.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: In view of the fact that this subject is being discussed by numerous politicians and Members on the benches opposite, outside the House, how is the public interest going to suffer by a discussion inside the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the same question again.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total expenditure from all sources in Great
Britain for the latest available year for the following social services: Unemployment, Poor Law, National Health, and Old Age Pensions; and what is the amount in the same year which is borne by the State in respect of each of these services?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to Command Paper 12 of 1925, which gives the latest available information on this expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WOMEN.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women in the Civil Service with professional qualifications are employed in grades open to men; whether they receive the same rates of pay; and, if not, what would be the cost of placing them on the same scale?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am unable to say how many women there may be in the various grades in the Civil Service who possess professional qualifications, In a few posts in which medical qualifications are required, women receive the same scales as men.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many of these women maintain husbands and families?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid I do not know.

Miss WILKINSON: Why is it, if the women receive the same wages as men in this particular case, the rule is not applied to the other women employed?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have to pay the necessary market rate to secure satisfactory candidates. It is notorious that we do secure such candidates in the Civil Service, without giving equal pay to men and women.

Captain BENN: Has not this House explained itself quite definitely as to equal pay?

Captain GEE: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman takes these females into the Department without any idea or knowledge of their qualifications, as he is unable to give them?

Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly not. This question asked about professional qualifications and no definition was given as to what professional qualifications meant. The only class where professional qualifications are required of women is the case of the lady doctors to whom I have referred.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of women in the manipulative grades in the Civil Service employed on the same work as men; how many of these women are receiving equal pay with men; how many are remunerated at a lower rate; and what would be the cost per annum of placing all those women on the men's scale?

Mr. GUINNESS: The number of women in the manipulative grades in the Civil Service employed on the same work as men is approximately 25,000. As regards their rate of remuneration and the cost of placing them on the scales appropriate to men, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 24th March to the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst), of which I am sending him a copy.

BONUS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the difference made to the annual expenditure owing to the War bonus through a rise or fall in the average cost of living of one point?

Mr. GUINNESS: The bonus is subject to variation in March and September of each year for every full five points rise or fall in the increased cost of living index figure on the average of the six months preceding. A rise or fall of one point only would not, therefore, affect the amount of bonus. A rise or fall of five points would make a difference in the expenditure on the bonus of permanent staff and salaries of temporary staff equal to approximately £1,370,000 a year.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALE SERVANTS (EXCISE DUTY).

Mr. JACOB: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with the purpose of encouraging the employment of
disabled ex-service men, he will consider in such cases exempting the employer from the Excise Duty on male servants?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously believe it is de-desirable to subsidise the patriotism of the wealthiest sections of the community, as suggested in the question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The question bears upon the employment of wounded or disabled ex-service men, and it is from that point of view that I am giving it consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated amounts of arrears of Income Tax and Super-tax, respectively, on 5th April, 1924, and the estimated outstanding arrears of these amounts on 30th November, 1924, or on the latest available date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The latest revised estimates of the amounts of Income Tax and Super-tax due to be paid (namely, amounts in respect of which a demand for payment had been issued) but not paid at the 31st March, 1924, are as follow:


Income Tax
…
…
£44,877,000


Super-tax
…
…
£25,973,000


I regret that I am unable to give particulars of the arrears of Income Tax outstanding at 30th November, 1924, or at any later date, i.e., during the progress of the main collection of the year's tax. It is considered, however, that the arrears now outstanding in respect of previous years of assessment have fallen to a comparatively small sum. The approximate amount of Super-tax estimated to be due to be paid but not paid at 31st December, 1924, was £10,000,000. The latter figure, however, includes considerable sums which became legally payable and were actually demanded of the taxpayer after the 1st April, 1924.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite unable to give us an estimate of the amounts outstanding under either of these heads at the present time?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That was the direct conclusion to be drawn from my answer.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many Members of the Labour party are in arrears with their Super-tax?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a personal question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated number of persons with incomes of above £5,000 a year during the financial year ended 31st March, 1924: and what was the estimated total income of those persons and their estimated average individual income?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Up to the 31st December, 1924, 25,177 persons with incomes exceeding £5,000 per annum had been assessed to Super-tax in respect of the year 1923–24. The total income so assessed amounted to £311,560,000, being an average income of about £12,370. The income thus charged to Super-tax is the Income Tax income of the preceding year, i.e., of 1922–23. Similar details are not yet available in respect of Super-tax assessments for the year 1924–25, relating to Income Tax incomes of the year 1923–24.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has received any reply, official or unofficial, to the last published note to the French Government on the subject of their debt to this country; and, if so, whether there is any reason why it should be kept secret?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No official reply has been received from the French Government. For obvious reasons it would not be proper for me to make any statement except as regards an official reply.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to be so reticent? Can he at least tell the House whether the onus for taking the next step rests upon him or not?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I conceive that should any step he required to be taken—which I do not assume at all—by His
Majesty's Government, it would be taken on behalf of the Government as a whole and announced by whatever Minister was judged to be appropriate.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Could we know upon whom the onus rests of raising this matter in the Cabinet?

Mr. SPEAKER: Those matters are secret.

Oral Answers to Questions — NITROGEN FIXATION. (BILLINGHAM FACTORY).

Mr. JOHN BECKETT: 57
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, when the Government factory at Billingham for the fixation of nitrogen was advertised for sale, it was stated that information procured by the Government Commission to the German factory at Oppau would be included; and whether there is any proviso dealing with this information in the private treaty under which the factory was sold to Messrs. Brunner, Mond;
(2) on what date the contract with Messrs. Brunner, Mond for the sale of the Government factory for the fixation of nitrogen at Billingham was signed; who are the signatories; what are the terms of the agreement; what was the price paid; and what was the cost to the taxpayer of building and equipping the factory;
(3) which Department was responsible for sending a commission to Oppau to investigate the German method of fixing nitrogen from the air; what was the cost; who were the members; when was a report received; and when did the Government agree to allow Messrs. Brunner, Mond access to this report?

Mr. GUINNESS: With the permission of the hon. Member, I will answer these questions together. As I should like to take this opportunity of dealing with the matter somewhat fully, and as the reply is therefore very long, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say if it is the case that the French Government retained this process for use in the State national factories in France, and how the price at which this product is sold in France compares with the price at which it is sold at Billingham?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have no information as to the position in France, or whether this process is being used in the French factories, but I have evidence that the information received at Oppau is practically valueless and no use is being made of it in this country.

Mr. BECKETT: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment on Thursday.

Following is the reply circulated:

The position was that on the 22nd March, 1918, the Minister of Munitions received sanction to proceed with the erection of a factory at Billingham-on-Tees for the production on a large scale of nitrogen and hydrogen and for combining nitrogen and hydrogen so obtained for the production of ammonium nitrate to the ultimate extent of 60,000 tons per annum.

Owing to the shortage of labour and of building materials not much progress had been made with the actual building of the factory at the Armistice. Consideration was given to the scheme as a post-War measure, but it was found that, owing to information which had been obtained since the Armistice, particularly in respect of chemical works in the German occupied area, the original scheme, if proceeded with, would have to be much modified.

The matter was submitted to the Cabinet in October, 1919, with a recommendation that the property should be advertised for sale on the basis of the Government interests in the production of nitric acid for service explosives being safeguarded.

On Cabinet approval being obtained, the property was extensively advertised in the London, provincial and technical Press. It was not stated in that advertisement that the information procured by the Government Commission to the German factory at Oppau would be included, but applicants were informed that further particulars would be supplied on application to the Ministry of Munitions. There were no suitable applicants other than Messrs. Brunner, Mond.

In the agreement with Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company there is a proviso by which the Government undertook, on completion of the purchase, to give all available information in its possession as to processes, etc., to the purchasers.

The contract was signed on the 22nd April, 1920, by the then Minister of Munitions, Lord Inverforth, and by two directors on behalf of Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company.

It is not in the public interest to disclose the terms of the agreement, nor am I prepared to depart from the usual practice of refusing to disclose the sale price of surplus Government property or stores. This rule has always been observed in view of the possibility of prejudicing the purchaser in the event of his wishing to re-sell. I may, however, say that, having regard to the circumstances, the price was, in nay opinion, a satisfactory one, and there appeared no probability whatever of obtaining such a price from any other source.

The factory had neither been built nor equipped, but land had been acquired, roads made, and foundations laid, etc., and certain orders for plant, etc., given. The commitments for land, stores, plant, etc., amounted to approximately £1,000,000.

The Commission was sent to Oppau and other chemical factories by the Ministry of Munitions. I cannot ascertain after this lapse of time what the cost was. It is not in the public interest to disclose who were members of the Commission, whose report (a confidential document) was received in February, 1919. It was, as already stated, part of the contract that Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company should have access to the report and such other information as was available to the Government, and in this connection, I would refer the hon. Member to Article 172 of the Versailles Treaty, which provided that the German Government should disclose to the Allied and Associated Powers the nature and mode of manufacture of all such chemicals as are here in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE ESTATES (FORMATION OF COMPANIES).

Mr. RADFORD: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the recent formation of limited or unlimited corn-panics to take over the private estates of certain persons; and whether he will take all necessary steps, by retrospective legislation if necessary, to ensure that
such persons shall not thereby be enabled to evade their liabilities for taxation and death duties?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter to which my hon. Friend refers has for some time past engaged the attention of the Board of Inland Revenue. He will not, however, expect me at the present stage to make any definite pronouncement.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEBT REDEMPTION.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the interest of sound and wise finance, he will consider the advisability of using all money received in satisfaction of death duties, and not only Victory Bonds, this money being generally of the nature of capital, for the redemption of debt and not for current expenditure?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The provision made for the redemption of debt consists of the New Sinking Fund, which is now a fixed amount of £50,000,000 a year, and the Old Sinking Fund, which represents any excess of total revenue over total expenditure. This is a more convenient and a more prudent arrangement than to make the redemption of debt dependent on the fluctuation of a single head of revenue.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received by the Exchequer under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act and credited to special receipts in the financial year 1924–25?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The amount credited to Special Receipts in the financial year 1924–25 from this source was £9,000,000.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Was that the total sum received'?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The amount actually collected in 1924–25 was £7,000,000, but for various reasons payments to the Exchequer in any year do not exactly correspond with the collection in that year.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD FUND.

Major WHELER: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport the amounts of money credited to the Road Fund for the financial years 1922–23, 1923–24 and 1924–25; the amounts expended on first-class, second-class and unclassified roads each year; and the other principal items of expenditure of this Fund?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The financial statements of the Road Fund are not kept in a form that would permit of a ready answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question. The accounts for the past three years are being analysed under the headings asked for, and I hope to be able to forward a statement to my hon. and gallant Friend very shortly.

Mr. HURD: Can Members generally have that statement?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I will have it circulated.

MERSEY ROAD TUNNEL.

Major WHELER: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport the estimated cost of the Mersey road tunnel scheme; whether the Government are making a grant from public funds for this expenditure: if so, what is the amount; whether any of this amount is from the Road Board Fund and, if so, what is the amount?

Colonel ASHLEY: The estimated cost of the Mersey Road tunnel is £5,000,000, and the Government have agreed to make a grant from the Road Fund of 50 per cent. of the approved cost. No other grant from public funds is contemplated.

Major WHELER: Is not that a very large sum to give to one small bit of road, considering the very large demands there are upon this fund for other types of road?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot agree that this is a short bit of road, as it serves the great city of Liverpool and the industrial areas of Lancashire and Cheshire, and is a very important artery of communication.

Major COHEN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much Liverpool contributes to the Road Fund?

Colonel ASHLEY: I could not say exactly. The City of Liverpool would, of course, contribute the largest part of the 50 per cent. which does not come out of the Road Fund.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman formed any estimate of the increased value of property in Birkenhead due to the making of this road?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir.

LOCOMOTIVES (TRAVELLING ON FOOTPLATES).

Mr. BROMLEY: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport under what conditions railway companies permit third persons, other than officers and employés of the railway companies, to travel on the footplates of railway engines; and whether, seeing that this practice is a grave danger to the travelling public, he will take steps to prevent its continuance?

Colonel ASHLEY: The responsibility in this matter rests with the various railway companies, but I understand that it is only exceptionally that a third person other than a railway official will be allowed to travel on an engine. I may say that I have no information suggesting that the practice mentioned has led to any danger to the travelling public.

Mr. BROMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Grantham disaster of 19th September, 1906, when 14 people lost their lives, was directly attributable to a person other than a skilled railwayman riding on the engine footplate?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not aware of that.

FERRY LANE, WALTHAMSTOW.

Major CRAWFURD: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the condition of Ferry Lane, connecting Walthamstow and Tottenham, where a fatality recently occurred; and if he proposes to take any steps to render this road less dangerous?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 16th February last to the hon. Member for North Tottenham, of which I am sending him a copy. The negotiations therein referred to have not yet reached a definite issue, but I understand that the
Walthamstow Urban District Council are proceeding with the reconstruction of their tramway track, a step which is likely to expedite a general setttlement. I can assure the hon. Member that my Department will do everything possible to assist the progress of the negotiations.

RIVER TEES (NEW DOCKS).

Sir PARK GOFF: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London and North Eastern Railway Company are unable, unaided, to proceed with the scheme for the creation of new docks at the mouth of the River Tees; and whether, having regard to the admitted necessity of such docks and to the serious unemployment in the district in which the proposed docks would be created, he is prepared to call an early conference of the various parties interested to discuss what steps can be taken to expedite a commencement of this scheme?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have already discussed this scheme with representatives of the Tees Conservancy Commission and the London and North Eastern Railway Company. I understand that the whole question is at present under consideration by the Commissioners, and I should, of course, be glad to discuss the matter further with them if any point should arise on which I could be of assistance.

Sir P. GOFF: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the local authorities are unanimously in favour of this scheme except the railway company who originally started these docks, and have the entire monopoly of that district?

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: When the right hon. Gentleman does decide this matter, will he consider the claims of other localities, such as the Hartlepools?

Colonel ASHLEY: All relevant matters will be taken into consideration.

PEDESTRIANS.

Colonel APPLIN: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the number of fatal accidents caused to pedestrians through walking on the left side of the road; and if, in view of the danger of not facing on-coming traffic, he will take the necessary steps
to ensure the rules of the road being complied with by pedestrians?

Colonel ASHLEY: I regret that I am not in possession of the figures which my hon. and gallant Friend requires. As regards the last part of the question, I am not aware of any general rule of the road applicable to persons on foot.

Colonel APPLIN: Is it not a fact that most of the accidents occurring to pedestrians from motor-cars are caused by them having their hacks to the oncoming traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is much better to walk on the other side.

MANCHESTER-LIVERPOOL ROAD.

Mr. RILEY: 79.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the length of the new road from Manchester to Liverpool, giving the average width, the acreage of land which has been purchased in the making of the road, the average price per acre, and the total cost of the road?

Colonel ASHLEY: Negotiations regarding the proposed new road are not sufficiently advanced to enable me to give the hon. Member the information which he desires. I am not aware that any land purchases have taken place.

SLOW-MOVING TRAFFIC.

Mr. LOOKER: 80.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the practice of slow-moving traffic in London and other towns of consistently keeping to the middle of the road, especially where tramway lines exist, and under any circumstances of keeping two or three yards more out from the kerb than they need to do; and if, in order to relieve the consequent congestion and facilitate the progress of faster vehicles, particularly of those engaged in business pursuits, he will take steps to so control the slower-moving traffic, both horse and motor driven, so that this congestion may be relieved?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that slow-moving traffic frequently uses the crown of the road instead of keeping as near to the left or near-side of the roadway as may be practicable. Section 10 of the London Traffic Act empowers me, after reference to the London Traffic Advisory Committee, to make regulations, inter alia, for regulating the
relative position in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds or types. This matter will be considered by the Advisory Committee in due course.

Captain GARRO-JONES: How much longer shall we have to wait before horse-drawn traffic is taken off the busy London streets altogether?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Member will, of course, appreciate that the London Traffic Advisory Committee has only been in existence about two and a half months. It has been sitting five or six days a week, and we cannot change everything at once.

RIVER HUMBER.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the continued unemployment in the country and the bad means of communication between the northern and southern shores of the estuary of the Humber, he will have the project of a bridge over, or a tunnel under, the Humber again examined by his Department?

Colonel ASHLEY: No definite proposals for the improvement of traffic facilities between the northern and southern shores of the estuary of the Humber have at any time been presented to my Department, but, as already indicated to the hon. and gallant Member on previous occasions, if the responsible local authorities desire to initiate any scheme of this nature, I shall carefully consider their proposals.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that a very considerable expenditure would be required to make the necessary surveys? Surely this is a matter, not for the City authorities alone, but for help from the Department?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Member must understand that the initiative must obviously and rightly come from the local authorities, and they will put up their proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL SOUTH DEVON ELECTRICITY SCHEME.

Major HARVEY: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the delay
in dealing with the application for the Central South Devon Electricity Order and the refusal to grant powers which would lead to the mimediate supply of electricity to a large area, in regard to which there is no competing application, is causing inconvenience in the locality; and will he expedite proceedings in this matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: The scheme submitted with this application did not appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be satisfactory or sufficiently comprehensive from a, technical point of view, and the promoter was asked to submit a further scheme. This has not yet been received. I would, however, point out that there is a competing application in respect of a part of the area concerned, and so soon as the further scheme asked for has been received the Commissioners intend to hold a local inquiry into the two applications.

Major HARVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the second scheme asked for is of a nature which is entirely different from any scheme that has been demanded before?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is why we are going to have a local inquiry so that these matters may be brought out.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AUXILIARY POSTMEN.

Mr. GROVES: 82 and 84.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether his attention has been called to the growing discontent among the auxiliary postmen, as owing to the increased degree of illness during the winter through influenza the loss of wages has been serious; and whether he will consider a scheme for the incorporation of these men within a scheme for payment of time necessarily lost through illness;
(2) whether his Department possesses rules and regulations whereby auxiliary postmen of five to ten years' satisfactory service can have the benefit of the sick leave, holiday and pension concessions general to the postal service; and, if not, will he consider the possibility of framing a scheme whereby such men can be included?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Auxiliary postmen are employed on part-time duties only; and their daily hours of duty vary considerably in individual cases. As a rule their employment in the Post Office is not their only occupation, but where their daily work for the Post Office is sufficiently long to be regarded as their principal source of livelihood, they are fully insured under the Insurance Acts, and, when sick, draw the benefit provided under these Acts. All auxiliary postmen are allowed two weeks' holiday with pay annually. These officers are unestablished; and they are not, therefore, entitled to the privileges—including pension—enjoyed by established officers; but while their service is not pensionable under the Pensions Acts, there is no age limit to their service so long as they remain fit to perform their work. I am not aware that there has been any marked increase in the amount of illness among members of this class, but, in any case, the institution of a scheme on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would, I fear, be impracticable.

Mr. GROVES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility in the future of arranging that these men are employed on full time, thus bringing them under the beneficent scheme which he has indicated.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In many cases it is a great advantage that he should have some other occupation.

Mr. GROVES: Yes, he is driven to it.

Mr. GROVES: 83.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of auxiliary postmen employed in the country; at what age the services of such men are dispensed with; what is the number of hours worked per day; whether the period so worked is continuous or a split period; and the wages per hour?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of auxiliary postmen employed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is approximately 11,000. There is no fixed age at which their services are dispensed with. The hours of work range from two to six per day, and may be performed either as a continuous duty or in split periods. The wages, including bonus, range from about 1s. 3¼d. to 10¾d. an hour according to length of service and locality of employment.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. HURD: 85.
asked the Postmaster-General if any members of his Post Office Advisory Committee have resigned during the past year; if so, what causes have been assigned; and how many business men and officials, respectively, are now upon the Committee?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the total membership of the Post Office Advisory Committee; when it was formed; how often it meets; what members have resigned from it since its foundation; and why?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Advisory Council was originally constituted in June, 1921, and has since been reappointed by myself and each of my predecessors. It at present comprises 16 members, and does not include any official. It has now fixed dates of meeting, but is summoned when required to consider specific questions upon which I desire its advice. Eight members at various times have declined reappointment, in most cases without giving reasons.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that Lord Burnham, one of the members of this Committee, has made a statement during the past few days as to the cause of his resignation?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, Lord Burnham has given his views in public, and I have given mine, and I have nothing to add.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: How often has this Committee met, and has it fixed days for meeting?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. Friend must give me notice of that question. I cannot answer for my predecessors, but, as far as I am concerned, it has met on the average about once a quarter. It has met once this year, and it is due to meet again after the holidays.

TELEPHONE CHARGES.

Colonel DAY: 86.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to a complaint by the London Theatre of Varieties, Limited, forwarded to the Controller, London Telephone Service, on 20th March, 1925; and whether, seeing that this company pays
over £1,000 a year for telephone calls in respect of the 15 halls that are owned by the company, and that for the year ending 31st December last there was an apparent overcharge in their account of approximately £10 per quarter, and that in the account for the quarter ending 31st December in only one instance was the charge correct, in one case it was below the correct amount, and in the other 13 halls the company was overcharged, also that in every case the error was brought to the notice of the Controller but no redress given, neither was the request for a joint test granted, the only reply received being an intimation that unless the account was paid within seven days the agreement would be terminated, he will arrange for a joint test to be held, so that the accuracy or otherwise of the telephone charges may be scrutinised?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have seen the complaint referred to and previous correspondence. I am satisfied that the fullest inquiries have been made in each case of complaint and that there is no reason for reducing the amount of the accounts rendered. In connection with a special check made in July last on one of this company's circuits, a number of omissions were brought to their notice. A further special record was taken recently on another of the company's installations in connection with an alleged overcharge in the December accounts, but the company declined to produce their record for the purpose of comparison. In the circumstances the Controller of the London Telephone Service was justified in giving notice to terminate the agreement failing payment of the amount outstanding.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant to this company and other dissatisfied telephone subscribers facilities for a joint test in order that they may be aware that the test is to be taken and compare their figures together.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A joint test seems a purely futile proceeding. The only advantage of the test is that it should be taken when the user is not aware of it.

Colonel DAY: Cannot some notice be given to them that the test will take place during the next month or two
months? I know that in one instance the Post Office undercharged instead of overcharged.

WIRELESS COMMITTEE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 87.
asked the Postmaster-General what was the number of individuals serving on the Post Office Wireless Committee; what number of them were civil servants; what Report, if any, was presented; what action has been taken; and whether it is his intention to set up a further Committee to deal with this subject?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Committee which was appointed by the late Cabinet consisted of nine members, of which three were civil servants. It did not present a report, but, after consideration of the evidence submitted to it, I have made certain changes in organisation which were described in an answer to a question by the hon. Member for Camberwell North on 24th February. It is not proposed to appoint a further committee on the subject.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing dissatisfaction in the country at the interminable delay of successive Governments in dealing with this question of Empire wireless?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that two Members of the Committee (Lord Burnham and Sir Alfred Mond) have retired from the whole business because they say it is neither Imperial nor business in its aspects.

EX-SERVICE MEN, EXETER AREA.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 90.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a large number of telegraph messengers are waiting for employment as postmen in the Exeter area and that this is preventing permanent employment being given to ex-service men, some of whom are disabled and have been employed as temporary postmen; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that preference is given to deserving ex-service men in this area?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Half the vacancies for postmen are assigned to boy messengers and half to ex-service men. The boy messengers are engaged on leaving school on the understanding that, if they prove satisfactory, permanent places will be found for them on reaching adult age. Men engaged for purely temporary work have no claim to permanent employment, and can only be considered for appointment as postmen if they are put forward therefor, in turn with other ex-service men, by the Employment Exchange, through which channel all ex-service men are obtained. The ex-service men have had their full share of postmen's vacancies in the Exeter area, but the filling of vacancies is at present suspended in view of a revision of postal services which may result in a reduction of staff.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that half the vacancies during the next 12 months will be filled by ex-service men?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: One-half of any vacancies which are due to be filled, certainly.

POSTAL FACILITIES, SALFORD.

Mr. RADFORD: 92.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now completed his inquiries into the inadequate postal facilities of the Borough of Salford; and whether he is now prepared to have the same adequately remedied?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The postal facilities at Salford do not appear to be specially inadequate in comparison with those available elsewhere. I am considering the question raised by my hon. Friend in its general bearing, and I regret that my inquiries are not yet complete.

Mr. RADFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although Salford is a town of about 240,000 inhabitants, no telegram or registered letter can be sent after seven o'clock in the evening? I am sure no other town in the country is so inadequately served?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a statement, not a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WIRELESS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 89.
asked the Postmaster-General what stage has been
reached in the promotion of his scheme to provide an efficient Imperial wireless service; and when it will be in operation?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to this question is rather long, but perhaps, in view of the importance of the matter, and of previous questions that have been asked on the subject, the House will bear with me while I read it.
The high power station which is in course of erection at Rugby is expected to be completed about November next.
Sites for the beam stations for communication with Canada and South Africa have been placed at the disposal of the Marconi Company, and the stations are due to be completed early in October. Sites for the beam stations for communication with India and Australia have been submitted to the company for approval, and those stations should be completed within nine months of the actual provision of the sites.
The corresponding beam stations in the Dominions are in various stages of progress. The latest reports indicate that the South African and Canadian stations will be completed about the same time as the corresponding stations here. The stations in India and Australia will probably not be ready before the end of this year, or the early part of next year.
The Dominions have been invited to nominate representatives to a permanent committee under the chairmanship of the Assistant Postmaster-General, to consider practical details of working the services, including such matters as routing of messages and tariffs.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. HAYES: 93.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that applicants for widows' pensions under Article 17 are informed that for the application to be successful the husband's death must be certified as materially hastened by the lingering effects of War service; how many applications have been made by widows for pensions under Article 17 since the 1st November, 1924; and the number that have been awarded pensions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The hon. Member is misinformed. It is not the practice of the Ministry to notify applicants in the terms suggested. Since 1st November, 1924, 378 awards of pension under Article 17 have been made, and 277 claims have been rejected.

CONTINUING PENSIONS.

Mr. HAYES: 94.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider an amendment of the Royal Warrant so that all men assessed at over 10 per cent. and under 20 per cent. indeterminate duration may be given life pensions, the same to be payable quarterly?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Cases of minor disablement assessed at less than 20 per cent. have never been entitled to continuing pensions under the terms of the Pension Warrants, and my right hon. Friend could not, at this stage, undertake to recommend so wide-reaching an extension of their provisions, which have been approved by Parliament.

Mr. HAYES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the matter consideration at a later stage?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I do not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman means, because, whenever any question is asked in Parliament, consideration is given to it, and I have dealt with the matter in my answer by saying that my right hon. Friend could not undertake to upset the whole scheme as approved by Parliament.

FINAL AWARDS.

Mr. HAYES: 95.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in those cases considered for final awards and not found suitable and who are given an award for one year until further instructions, it is intended that they shall draw the present pension without re-boarding unless the pensioner submits a claim for increase of pension on the ground of deterioration?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is the policy of my right hon. Friend, as it was also that of his predecessor, to reduce to a minimum the frequent medical reexamination of pensioners who have been on the pension list for four years or more,
and the award referred to was designed to extend the period of review in cases where a final award could not be made Cases will be liable to review with due regard to the nature of the disability and other factors, and while a substantial number of them will probably not be again examined by a medical board, except in the circumstances stated, others will, if it is thought advisable, be re-examined by a board at suitable intervals.

DEPENDANTS' PENSION (J. HAWKINS).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 96.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Joseph Hawkins, a pre-war naval pensioner, petty officer, No. 134,156, pension office reference 8/N/3,524, was awarded a disability pension during the late war; that he was returned to the pension authorities as a single man despite the fact that during the war he allotted pay to his wife, and that she drew separation allowance for herself and children; and if he will state why this man's application to have the arrears of the pension in respect of a wife and children from the date of the original award has been refused and only 12 months' award allowed, having regard to the fact that it was not Hawkins's fault that the error arose?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The fact that the pensioner referred to was entitled to draw allowances in respect of wife and children only came to light through independent investigation by the Ministry. The question whether there are any special circumstances in the case which would allow of arrears in excess of the normal period of 12 months applicable in such cases being paid, will be considered when the case has been further investigated.

EDUCATIONAL GRANTS.

Mr. W. C. ROBINSON: 97.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will authorise the Special Grants Committee to make an educational grant in all cases where the children of the men who were killed in the War win scholarships?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My right hon. Friend would have no power to adopt this suggestion, nor would he feel justified in recommending so general an extension of the Regulations of the Special Grants Committee. I would re-
mind the hon. Member that in cases of the kind referred to the school fees for higher education would ordinarily be covered by the scholarship obtained, and, in addition, the Ministry of Pensions already contributes to the coat of maintenance in such cases by way of extension of the weekly allowance payable under the Warrant.

Ex-OFFICERS' LETTERS.

Mr. LOWTH: 98.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether letters sent by ex-officers to the officers' friend branch asking for advice are treated as confidential, or whether they are included in the Ministry of Pensions case paper, and, if necessary, used as evidence to refute a claim for pension?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: This branch of the Ministry was constituted to give guidance and advice to officers and their dependants in regard to pension matters, in order that the fullest information necessary to a just conclusion may be available both to the Ministry and to the Appeal Tribunals. The information furnished to the branch is generally of the greatest assistance to the Ministry and the Appeal Tribunal in establishing the case, for a claimant. It would clearly be irregular that any material information duly received in the branch should be ignored or suppressed, whatever its purport.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBER SWORN.

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:—

Lauchlan MacNeill Weir, esquire, County of Stirling and Clackmannan (Clackmannan and Eastern Division).

NOTICES OF MOTION.

ROAD FUND.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: I beg to give notice that, To-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to the administration of the Road Fund, and move a Resolution.

POOR LAW.

Mr. MACKINDER: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. J. Beckett), I beg to give notice that, To-morrow three weeks, he will call
attention to the abolition of the Poor Law, and move a Resolution.

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I beg to give notice that, To-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to the position of pre-War pensioners, and move a Resolution.

APPRENTICESHIP.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to give notice that, To-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to the want of an organised system of apprenticeship, and move a Resolution.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS (1882 TO 1922) AMENDMENT.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the powers of Joint Electricity Authorities.
There is general agreement in every part of the House as to the need of legislation dealing with electricity. The other day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made special reference to the subject in a speech dealing with unemployment. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same occasion laid special stress on electricity as one of the special ways of dealing with the disorganisation of trade and with unemployment. The Minister of Labour also on more than one occasion has attached special importance to progress in electricity as an important factor in the industrial position. While very little progress has been made in this, country, on the Continent great strides have been made in electrical development, and in France and Italy, which are assisted by water power, during the period since the War there has been immense electrical development and increased facilities for generation. In this country there have been repeated inquiries, both during and since the War, as to the right lines of development, and a Board of Trade Committee, known as the Williamson Committee, made special recommendations as to the best methods of meeting the demand. In 1919 the Coalition Government brought in a very complicated Bill largely based on the recommendations of the Williamson Committee. It went through its
various stages in this House with very little opposition, but when it reached the other place, the other House, owing to the late period of the Session—it was very nearly Christmas—thought fit to make drastic alterations. They deleted the compulsory powers proposed to be conferred on the authorities set up in the Bill. That Act set up Electricity Commissioners, who are still functioning, and who are under the Ministry of Transport. They had the duty put upon them of dividing the country into electrical districts, and when those districts had been defined, they had put upon them the responsibility to set up electricity authorities, and the whole country was to be apportioned between those authorities.
Although it is about five years since that Act was passed, very little progress has been made. One or two authorities have been set up but they have not been able to function, and there is a general consensus of opinion that their failure has largely been due to the absence of compulsory powers. My Bill is a very simple and short one. Its object is to restore those compulsory powers which were deleted in the House of Lords in December, 1919, in other words to bring the Bill back as it passed this House. I beg the House to allow it a Second Reading. I have had the advantage of technical experts in the drafting of it, but I have used as far as possible the original words to meet present circumstances and conditions. It is important that something should be done. Everyone agrees that cheap power is essential to industry. We have not the advantage of water power, but we have the very great advantage of a concentration of our industrial operations in a comparatively few areas. Unfortunately we have not got the concentration of generation. To get a large and cheap electricity supply all the experts agree that a good load factor is essential in the generation of power. A good load factor depends on a good diversity factor, and that in turn rests on the variety of demand. The building of power stations means a very large expenditure of capital, and a great variety of demand during the 24 hours means a heavy capital expenditure without adequate return. On the other hand, if you can concentrate
your demand on one or two stations you get that variety of demand, you get a good diversity factor and a good load factor. That enables the power to be sold at a very much lower price. This Bill will be capable of amendment in Committee, but it is an honest attempt to meet a problem which all sides of the House are agreed is an urgent question and is long overdue for settlement.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The speech to which we have just listened is a terrible example of the mistake which gentlemen who do not really understand the technicalities of things make when they dish out to the House of Commons a few technical phrases, on the chance of there being no one present who is able to deal with them satisfactorily. My objection to the Bill, and the objection, I believe, of the Government as well and of the party that supports it, is that at present the one thing we must be most careful about in dealing with electric power, generation, and distribution is the danger of stereotyping technical practice. I am opposed to the Bill, and I believe the Government also are opposed to it, simply on that ground. For, in view of the fact that the whole question of electric power generation and distribution is at present in the melting pot, and that it is highly probable that in the next few years we shall see very great technical advances and new methods of generation, it is most emphatically a mistake, at the present moment above all other moments, to do anything which will stereotype existing practice, and set the dead hand of the State on our technical progress. If I might be permitted to quote from the Anthology, I would remind hon. Members of one of their epigrams, which begins:
which, being translated, means: "How can you expect a power station engineer under Government domination to know when his generating plant has become obsolete if he is always with it and if he never leaves it"? It is on that ground, and on that ground in particular, that I oppose this Bill; and in the few short moments that remain, I may point out to the House what I mean by the possibilities of great advance in the immediate future. Everybody knows now that in
all probability within a very short space of time the problem of the internal combustion turbine will be solved. So many people of such ability are working upon it that it is almost certain that the problem will soon be solved, and that, as soon as it is solved, further solutions will be found to present difficulties. The chief reason electrical power is so expensive at the present time is the fact that we go about generating electricity in such a complicated and roundabout way. There is not the least doubt that towards the end of the present generation we shall see the direct generation of electricity by the oxydation of coal in some form of carbon cell. That is to say, instead of putting coal under a boiler, boiling the water, putting the steam into a steam-turbine, and producing a rotary motion in a dynamo, instead of that most roundabout way we shall towards the end of the present generation see the direct generation of electricity from the oxydation of coal.

Already on the Continent great minds have worked out the main principles on which this is to be done. The problem can be solved if we can find a means by which it will be possible to dissolve-carbon in a non-oxidising electrolyte opposed to a non-consumable electrode in an oxidising electrolyte. Under those conditions, carbon may be directly oxydised with the generation of electricity instead of the generation of heat. That being the case, I do deprecate interference in these matters by Members of this House who apparently have picked up one or two technical phrases, and, with them, would persuade the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill whose results can be nothing other than disastrous to technical progress.

Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the powers of Joint Electricity Authorities.

The House divided: Ayes, 124: Noes, 193.

Division No. 74.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W, Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Varley, Frank B.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Weir, L. M.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Wignall, James


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Percy Harris and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wallhead.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Neville, R. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Harland, A.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nuttall, Ellis


Balniel, Lord
Hartington, Marquess of
Oakley, T.


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pennefather, Sir John


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Frederick George


Berry, Sir George
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Betterton, Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W
Hilton, Cecil
Preston, William


Briscoe, Richard George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Radford, E. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Buckingham, Sir H.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Burman, J. B.
Homan, C. W. J.
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Remnant, Sir James


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hutchison, G. A. C.(Midl'n & Peebles)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Crook, C. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gansbro)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Steel, Samuel Strang


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Templeton, W. P.


Dixey, A. C.
Lougher, L.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan




Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lumley, L. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Waddington, R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacIntyre, Ian
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fermoy, Lord
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wells, S. R.


Fielden, E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Ford, P. J.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Forestier-Walker, L.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wise, Sir Fredric


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meller, R. J.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gates, Percy
Meyer, Sir Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-



Gee, Captain R.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Soft, Sir Park
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Mr. Austin Hopkinson and Captain


Grant, J. A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Moreing.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS CONTINUATION) BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company, and to amend the South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Act, 1900; and for other purposes." [South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (New Capital) [Lords.]

South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill [Lords],

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SPORTING RIGHTS (RATING) BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to the rating of Sporting Rights," presented by Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK; supported by Brigadier-General Brooke, Mr. Grotrian, Lord Fermoy, and Lieut.-Colonel James; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 29th April, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

Orders of the Day — GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT, 1921.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I beg to move,
That whereas His Majesty's Government and the German Government have agreed that the existing procedure under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, shall be suspended and replaced by an alternative method not involving payments by individual merchants in such a way as to be without prejudice to any right enjoyed by His Majesty's Government in respect of this Act under the Dawes Plan, the London Protocol of the thirtieth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, or otherwise, the operations of Sections 1, 2, and 5 of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, shall be suspended on and after the tenth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, until His Majesty shall revoke any Order in Council which He may he pleased to make for giving effect to this Resolution.
This subject appears to be overlaid with technicalities, but I think the story is quite simple, and I will try to explain it briefly to the House. The German Reparation (Recovery) Act, commonly known as the "26 per cent. levy," is the principal means, and indeed it is practically the only effective means yet devised, for securing for Great Britain her share in the German reparation payments. This Act has produced an increasing flow of reparation payments which we can set as they come to hand against the instalments of our debt payments to the United States of America. Any proposal to substitute another method for this useful mechanism would have to be most carefully scrutinised by the House as it has been most searchingly weighed and examined by the Government.
The German Reparation (Recovery) Act works in the following way. If an English merchant buys a piano in Berlin worth £100 he pays 74 per cent. to the Berlin seller, and he pays 26 per cent. to the English Customs. He then sends the Customs' receipt for £26 to the Berlin seller, who obtains payment in German currency from the German Government. That is the process. So long as the German exporter is reimbursed by his own Government the 26 per cent. which he has paid to the British
Treasury, the Reparation (Recovery) Act has no protective effect whatever. On the whole, except during the Ruhr occupation, when for a time the German Government declared itself forced to cease to indemnify the German exporters, this Act has worked quite satisfactorily. Over £25,000,000 have been produced by its agency for the British Treasury. Let me remind the House that this sum of reparation is virtually, indeed actually, reparation in kind, and has always been treated as reparation in kind instead of reparation in cash by the Reparation Commission. It is a form of reparation in kind which, instead of being expressed by special or artificial imports of particular commodities arises, naturally, from the normal flow of the German goods, which our general trade in this country seeks to absorb. It is a form of reparation in kind which arises from natural processes and not from artificially stimulated processes.
It is, obviously, of high importance if we seek to recover German reparations that every conceivable method of taking deliveries in kind should be developed to its maximum. In my opinion, there is no doubt about the ability of Germany to make payment in marks up to the full scale and at the proper period fixed by the Dawes Committee, and I believe that there is very little ground for doubting her willingness to make such payments. The difficulty arises not in the collection of the payment of reparation in Germany in marks, but in the payment of those reparations across the frontiers in the currencies of the various States to which they are passed. That is the difficulty and that is the main limiting factor at the present time upon the discharge of reparations according to the Dawes scheme by Germany. Payments in cash, therefore, have to be supplemented by payments in kind, and payments in kind present many difficulties of their own, through the reactions which they create upon the national industry or may create upon the national industry of the receiving countries. It is, obviously, impossible for us, for instance, who are a great coal exporting country, to imitate France and Italy in taking our reparations or any portion of them in the form of deliveries in coal. But we do absorb in the ordinary course of trade considerable quantities of German goods. Although the quantities are less than those which we received
before the War, still they are considerable quantities. The Reparation (Recovery) Act enables us to take a proportion of the value of all these imports for reparation purposes.
Such is the position as it exists to-day, and such was the position when His Majesty's present Government assumed office. No sooner had we taken office in November last than there was submitted to us the draft of a commercial treaty between Great Britain and Germany, which had been skilfully and carefully negotiated in Berlin by the British Ambassador there, Lord D'Abernon. The provisions of the treaty were important. They are now published and they have been approved by all parties in the House. For the first time in this treaty we obtained formal and effectual recognition from a foreign country of the advantages which it enjoys through the existence of our Free Trade system. We believe that the treaty ought to be agreed to. We believe that if it were agreed to it would foster and revive trade between Great Britain and Germany, the delay in which is a recognisable factor in the present depression of our affairs. We consider that it would lead to a development of our export trade with Germany which, through many causes, has so woefully shrunk from its pre-War level. The Government was, therefore, disposed to sign the treaty. The German Government, however, attempted to make a condition of their signature that the Reparation (Recovery) Act should be abrogated, and they made various suggestions for alternative machinery. They were quite willing to pay the same sums as were being collected under the Reparation (Recovery) Act, but they objected to the method. They complained of it as invidious, and sought to devise other means by which the same result would be achieved.
None of these means commended themselves to us as satisfactory. A deadlock ensued. The German negotiators came over to London, and they discussed round a table their various alternative plans. Throughout these discussions we maintained the following position, that we could not give up the solid advantages which the Treasury derived under the Reparation (Recovery) Act unless we were convinced beyond what I believe is called a peradventure, that we were not
going to suffer the slightest practical disadvantage as a result of the change. Provided that that was established, and that we were reassured and convinced on this point, we said that we were quite willing to adopt any method which was more acceptable to the German Government and not objected to by the Reparation Commission. We said that the fact that it was more acceptable to the German Government, provided that our interest was not affected, was a circumstance which recommended it, apart from other matters, to us. We told the German delegates that if they could find a satisfactory alternative, not at that moment, but at any time in the future, we would examine their alternative in a spirit of good will and with a sincere desire to reach an agreement. We told them also that if in regard to any alternative of which, prima facie, we liked the look, difficulties arose with the Reparation Commission, or in any other quarter, we would use our influence and our good offices to smooth them away. On letters being exchanged between the Governments in this sense and in this spirit the German Government declared their willingness to sign the Treaty, and the Treaty was signed on both sides. Since then, for four months negotiations have ensued; most laborious and intricate negotiations, exploring every avenue, and dealing with many alternative suggestions. These negotiations have been in progress between the British and the German official representatives, and throughout we have had the assistance of the Agent-General for Reparation Payments.
The result of these negotiations is now submitted to the House in this White Paper, which is available in the Vote Office. Quite apart from the negotiations which we have conducted about the Anglo-German Treaty with the German Government, and the arguments arising out of that, which I have just explained, there arises, from separate causes, another series of reasons which have led us to the feeling that some readjustment in the basis of the Reparation (Recovery) Act has become desirable. Under the operations of the Dawes plan, the reimbursement of the German exporter has to be made not by the German Government but out of the Dawes annuities. The German Government pay into the pool, and the reimbursement under our 26 per cent. levy to the German exporter is
made out of the Dawes annuities. These annuities can only be drawn on by us up to the limit of our share agreed upon with our Allies. All the available receipts are collected and placed in the pool, and after deducting certain prior charges for the armies of occupation, the Belgian priority, and various other priorities, the balance is divided among the Allied creditors in accordance with the Spa percentage. The British percentage, as is well known, is 22 per cent., so that the proportion that we are entitled to receive, no matter how we get it or from what source or by what methods, is the proportion fixed in relation to the general pool, in accordance with the inter-Allied agreement. As trade between Germany and Great Britain slowly revives, the yield of the Reparation (Recovery) Act tends proportionately to increase. During the later months of the present year it has yielded a sum definitely in excess of the share which is due to us from the general reparation pool. The Transfer Committee set up by the Dawes plan, under the chairmanship of a young and distinguished American citizen, Mr. Parker Gilbert, has at every stage adopted a reasonable and helpful attitude to these negotiations; but this Committee felt bound to draw our attention to the accumulation of surpluses, moderate surpluses, but still surpluses, which have occurred in later months beyond our agreed shares from the general pool. If this tendency had continued, either we should have had to reduce the percentage of our levy from 26 per cent, to some lower figure—20 per cent. 22 per cent., or some other lower figure—or else we should be in the position of no longer setting the good example which we have hitherto maintained, of strict, punctilious fulfilment, both in the letter and the spirit, of every inter-Allied agreement into which we have entered. It would be very inconvenient to traders in this country if we had to be constantly varying the rate of the levy upon the German imports, in order to make the minor adjustments, of £200,000 or £300,000, one way or the other, which arise in the normal development of trade, and to make the minor adjustments which would be necessary for us to conform to our share from the reparation pool
Therefore, from an international and inter-Allied point of view, as well as from our desire to meet the reasonable wishes of the German Government in so far as they can be met without any danger to British interests, we have become increasingly disposed to make a new arrangement.
Let us see in simple terms what that new arrangement is. Instead of the procedure which I have explained to the House, by which 26 per cent. of the value of the imported German goods is collected by the Customs from British importers, about 800 principal German exporting firms have undertaken, under the organisation of the German Government, to deliver the sterling which they receive for their goods up to an amount sufficient to cover whatever is the British share in the Dawes annuity, according to the agreements made with our Allies in any year. The Reichsbank arranges the collection of this sterling from the German exporters, and it pays them the equivalent in Reichsmarks. It pays them as an ordinary matter of business and the Agent-General takes over the sterling from the Reichsbank up to our share of the Dawes annuity. He then reimburses the bank with the equivalent in marks, and he transfers the sterling to the British Treasury. The German Government have arranged, further, as a measure of precaution, to establish a reserve fund of £500,000 sterling to be constituted in Germany, and to be drawn upon if, or in proportion as, the German exporters should not be delivering their due amount of sterling to the Reichsbank at any given moment, and we have an undertaking that this reserve fund is to be continually maintained at a level of £500,000. We, therefore, have this sum of money between us and any temporary short fall in the receipts of the Reichshank from the 800 German exporting firms. Therefore I think that it is fair to say that we get the full sterling equivalent of the 26 per cent. levy on the German imports, so far as it is compatible with our share in the general reparation pool. according to the latest inter-Allied agreement, but while we get what is our share, and I think a good and sufficient guarantee, the money is collected in the ordinary course of business without any
collection by the British Customs on the individual consignments of German exporters, and without any complicated encashing of individual vouchers in Germany. Great simplification and diminution of friction is, we hope, effected by this new procedure.
Lastly, let me say, we are bound by our promises to the German Government to give this system a fair trial. If it should not prove in practice to be satisfactory to us we have an agreement with the Germans that we shall have a frank and friendly discussion upon the subject and upon the difficulty. If the result of that discussion should still leave the situation unsatisfactory from our point of view, then we retain the ultimate power of resuming all our rights under the Reparation Recovery Act, and the form in which this resolution is submitted, and the procedure of striking out certain Clauses of the Act, but not repealing the Act, is designed purposely not to abrogate the Act, but only to place it in a condition of suspense.
I commend this new procedure to the House. I think that credit is due to our official negotiators for the ingenuity and patience which they have displayed in these, tangled negotiations. We have recognised a similar spirit of good faith and good will on the part of the German negotiators. His Majesty's Government is satisfied that the German Government will collaborate loyally in the execution of the new system, and we believe that that system will produce the same results as have been produced by the existing levy, limited as it is by international agreements, and will produce these results with less friction and disturbances to the general course of international trade. I commend this Resolution to the House as a small step, but a real step, upon that path of European peace and restoration on which this country, without distinction of party, has entered and along which it is the sincere determination of His Majesty's Government to persevere.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Suppose that the amount collected under this new scheme is in excess of anything to which we are entitled under the Dawes annuities, who gets the money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very sorry that I did not manage to convey that to
the hon. and gallant Member. Everything that is collected from every source is paid, either actually or in theory, into the reparation pool, and then, after the prior charges have been deducted, the balance is distributed between all the allied Powers in accordance with the Spa percentage.

Captain BENN: We collect and they get.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I can see a difficulty with regard to the goods which have come here for re-export. Has that side of the question been discussed? The difficulty is that British merchants do not always wish to disclose the goods for re-export. How is that difficulty going to be got over?

Sir FREDRIC WISE: May I ask a question?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I do not think that we can have a process of interrogation now. Replies to points raised can be given in the course of the Debate.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the speech to which we have just listened, indicated that this was a subject which has been hedged round by a great deal of technicality. I ought to say, first of all, that the House is indebted to him for his statement of the problem which has been abundantly clear, and I think that his explanation of the new arrangement has been given in just the simplest terms that could be employed. We on this bench wish to support the new arrangement. It may not be necessary to discuss the proposal at length, but I hope that the House will bear with me for a minute or two if I recall some of the discussions which took place about the time of the original Act of 1921, and more particularly during the spacious clays of 1924, when we were in office and when we were compelled to reduce this levy from 26 to 5 per cent. Let me refer first to some of the discussions which took place in 1921. There was at that time no division of opinion in this House regarding the importance of reparation, but practically all Members had come to the conclusion at that date that there seemed to be little prospect of getting any reparation payments at all, and
accordingly almost any device was welcomed which would bring to Great Britain some money year by year under that head. Now while there was no difference of opinion whatever regarding the importance of getting some kind of reparation, there was a great deal of difference of opinion in that Debate expressed in all parts of the House as to the mechanism of that Act, and the fear was expressed that it would in practice interfere with the activities of British and German trade and in the end defeat the very object in view.
I cannot help feeling that a great deal of that criticism has been justified by the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made this afternoon, because, after all, what he proposes to do in practice under this Resolution is to wipe out Clauses 1, 2 and 5 of the Act of 1921. If any hon. Member turns to that Act he will find that these are the operative Clauses of the Measure, and that Clauses 3 and 4 contain nothing more than one or two supplementary provisions, and also, particularly Clause 4, some arrangement for the variation of contracts. So as regards the German Reparation (Recovery) Act of 1921 we shall in effect to-day, if we adopt this Resolution, wipe out all the individualistic mechanism which that Act contained. In the course of the same Debate many extravagant statements were made, and I refer to them to-day only for the purpose of showing how far we, have travelled along the road of common sense in this connection.
This Act was ridiculed by one school of thought in this House which stood out for extravagant reparation, for a reparation which, I think it is recognised by every one to-day, could never have been paid, and which, if we had attempted to enforce it, could only have done this country incalculable damage. There were people who said that this Act was no good because in practice the people who would pay this money would be either the British importers or the British consumers, and one hon. Gentleman who is no longer connected with this House suggested a march to Berlin, while others suggested the seizure of German territory and other devices of that kind. All that has now disappeared. The Act was adopted, but those who anticipated a
very large yield from these proposals were disappointed.
During the Debate in 1921 no Member on the Government Bench condescended to give any figure as representing the probable yield under this Act, but in the course of the discussion it was stated by one authority that £20,000,000 a year was expected, whereas we know from the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that during the whole of the time, as I understand, the aggregate has been about £25,000,000. At the same time, everybody, whatever his view of reparation, is compelled to admit that this is the one instrument which, for all practical purposes, up to the present time has brought us in any reparation at all. There I think we are on common ground. Accordingly, we pay that tribute to the Act this after noon, though in effect under this Resolution a large part of its mechanism is to disappear. At that time various hon. Members who spoke with very great authority were afraid that this Act, in the event of the German Government not standing to its bargain with its own merchants, would lead to a very difficult state of affairs in this country, if the British importers and British consumers were required to pay the 26 per cent. import duty. That was exactly what happened during the time that we were in office in 1924.
I do not want to dig up old controversies this afternoon, because those days are gone. But I remember that Conservative Members on that. occasion were very strongly of opinion that we were letting Germany off, although independently Conservative Members, and certainly all Liberal Members, had been hammering at the door of the Treasury—a very sturdy door it is true—pointing out to us that as the German Government was no longer reimbursing its nationals under this Act, they would pay the 26 per cent. duty in this country together with British consumers. That leads us to a very good illustration of the essential weakness of the Act of 1921. During the course of last year's Debate, I tried to argue that the weakness of an Act of this kind was that you had no fully effective reciprocal test. The Act worked well enough so long as the German Government reimbursed its nationals, but if it stopped doing so you had no conceivable means of
making them stand by the bargain. Accordingly, you were driven either to abolish the duty altogether, or to reduce it to a nominal 5 per cent., which was the step that we adopted, until the German Government was prepared to take another view of the matter and to stand to the bargain. Therefore, I cannot help feeling this afternoon that our view of the step taken has been abundantly justified. If we have had to wait until we were out of office for justification, the fact is none the less sweet to us in Debate in this House.
What is the essential proposal that the Chancellor of the Exchequer submits? Everyone recognises that to try to go on collecting reparation under this Act on a purely individualistic basis—by that I mean the individual transaction of the individual trader—was practically an impossible way of collecting reparation on any large scale. At all events, I may say this regarding it, that it was the collection of a certain amount of reparation with the maximum trouble and difficulty, and in some cases delay, and I am afraid with some hardship to our own traders in Great Britain. During the Debate in 1921 my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), who was afterwards Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and undoubtedly an authority on these matters, said that the Act in that form should not be continued for one day longer than was strictly necessary, and by that phrase I understood him to mean that as soon as we could possibly get down to some comprehensive basis, it would be better for us all in this reparation problem. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has in the long run been compelled to resort to a device of that kind, because what takes place now, as I understand the scheme, is this—that we take about 800 representative German firms, and they make an overhead contribution to the Reichsbank, which is understood to be a measurement of the yield of this 26 per cent. levy month by month, and that is to be the basis of payment.
I cannot help pausing for one moment—this is only a minor issue, because it concerns Germany and not us—to say that I find it a little difficult to understand what is to be the position of the other firms exporting, apart from the 800. I can only imagine that they are
going later to extend the list, or that the transactions are small, and that it would not be worth while to go into them, and that, therefore, it is better to take an overhead 30 per cent. from the 800 ascertained people, and to say that that is equal to a 26 per cent. yield. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confirms that view of the case. That, of course, is a matter for Germany, and if that is a better arrangement, I have nothing to say against it. But, in practice, we to-day substitute a kind of overhead arrangement. Of course, it rests upon the good will of the German people and their determination to do their duty under this scheme, in the first place, and indirectly to the arrangement under the Dawes Scheme, together with the Spa percentages. Let me say at once that I think every hon. Member on this side of the House will agree, whatever view he may take ultimately of reparation, that a device of this kind, making for overhead and bulk arrangement, can only be in the interests of the recovery of European trade at present. It takes away the individual duty on the part of the trader in this country, and it substitutes for that a large scale bulk duty within the German State. That seems to me to be wholly advantageous from the point of view of British industry and commerce, and, I should imagine, advantageous from the point of view of German trade as well. We, therefore, support this proposal, partly because it bears out a great deal that we have argued in the past; partly because we believe that it is going to put a part of the reparation settlement on a basis in keeping with improved, and I trust improving, conditions of international trade; and partly also because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated, up to the extent to which it is valid at all, it will make a contribution to the revival of Central Europe and the removal of international economic disease at the present time.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I also would like to express my approval of the arrangement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been successful in putting through. I congratulate him upon the success of the negotiations. At the same time, perhaps I may modestly appropriate a certain amount of commendation for those who framed the Reparation (Recovery) Act, which enabled him to put
these negotiations through. He very frankly admitted that this arrangement would have been quite impossible unless he had had this weapon available. I do not understand that the arrangement is altogether abrogating the Clauses referred to. I understand that he is holding them in reserve; he is suspending them, and there will always be the knowledge that if this contract is not respected, there will be the Reparation (Recovery) Act to fall back upon. The Act was never anything but an expedient to bring the necessary pressure to bear on Germany to pay her contribution of reparations to Great Britain. From that point of view it has, as my hon. Friend has admitted very fairly, been the only successful expedient up to the present for the purpose of extorting reparation. That must be borne in mind, having regard to the contempt poured upon it at that time.
I do not believe that anyone said on the Ministerial Bench at that time that £20,000,000 would be paid. According to my recollection, the utmost that was said was that if German trade with Great Britain recovered its pre-War normal extent, the amount would be £20,000,000. It is obvious and a simple calculation. It is only one-quarter of the value of our trade. Our trade before the War was £80,000,000 of imports from Germany, and 26 per cent. of that is a little over £20,000,000. But we were entitled to expect even more than that ultimately, because £80,000,000 represented pre-War prices, and the present comparative prices would be anything in the neighbourhood of £120,000,000. That is a moderate addition to make, and I think the total would be more than that. So we were right in anticipating the possibility ultimately of something like £30,000,000, which would be equivalent to what we are paying to the United States in respect of our own debt. Therefore, if the Reparation (Recovery) Act fructified, as it ultimately would in any arrangement which issued out of it, we were entitled to expect to receive from this expedient a sum of money which would enable us to settle the whole of the Inter-Allied Debt difficulty upon the basis of the Balfour Note. That in itself is a very considerable achievement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the difficulty which we always have to encounter in payment of reparation is a difficulty which has confronted nations for the first time on a large scale—the payment of a large sum of money across the frontier. You can pay £350,000,000 upon an internal debt with more or less difficulty, but you can pay it. But when we come to pay £30,000,000 across the frontier, we, the greatest international traders in the world, the great centre of the financial interest of the world, find it difficult. Other nations find it difficult to pay us £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 in respect of interest. The difficulty is the paying across the frontier. The Germans up to the present have paid something like £400,000,000 or £500,000,000 altogether in respect of reparation and the armies of occupation. They have paid to the Allies something like £400,000,000 or £500,000,000 in gold. That is a very serious thing for them.
This arrangement was purely an expedient. There are only two ways in which you could do it, apart from melting their securities. That is a very difficult thing to get at, as everyone knows. You cannot get out the securities of nationals in other countries without their consent. Therefore, there were practically only two methods of paying reparation. One was by means of exports, and the other was in kind. As far as we were concerned, we did not want much in kind, except potash and dyes. Beyond that there was nothing which we could receive. Conceivably we might have received a little timber, but whenever there was an attempt to get timber, even the French who needed it for restoring their devastated areas found that somehow or other it did not materialise. I do not know why. At any rate in kind we could receive only potash and dyes. Therefore we had to fall back on exports, and this scheme, devised in 1921 to take advantage of the fact that we were the biggest international traders—which means that we not only sold more to other countries, but bought more from other countries—was a crude and rough method which, as the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, was only an expedient until there was some plan devised which would suit both Germany and ourselves better.
5.0 P.M.
The German Government failed in 1923 or 1924. That was entirely attributable to the fact that the invasion of the Ruhr had broken down completely the whole mechanism of German industry, commerce and business, and the Germans were not in a position to carry out what was a bargain of theirs. This was not merely on Act of Parliament carried here; it was an arrangement with Germany which the Germans themselves had signed, and when they failed it was due to circumstances, let us frankly admit, over which no Government in Germany had any control. That was in November, 1923, when a Conservative Government was in power here. It was a very difficult situation for the Labour Government to deal with, and they had to deal, not go much with Germany as with France. There was a certain amount of pressure to prevent their paying anything except in respect of the Ruhr. However, that is gone, and the Government of the day, using the Reparation (Recovery) Act, have made an arrangement which, I admit at once, is a better one than the Reparation (Recovery) Act from the point of view of the British trader, and also from the point of view of Germany herself. But I am glad that they are keeping these powers there in suspense. The best proof of the success of that Act is that the 26 per cent. will extract more reparation from Germany than our share. We never pretended, under the Reparation (Recovery) Act, to collect more than our own share. It has succeeded to such an extent that to-day we are recovering the whole of our share, and there is still a surplus. That is something upon which we may felicitate ourselves.
There was a question put by my right hon. Friend, and I want to press it a little further. Do I understand the German Government will pay 26 per cent. upon German exports to this country, although the amount of our share would only really come to, say, 20 per cent., and that the difference between 20 and 26 per cent. goes to the general pool for the Allies? If so, we are undoubtedly collecting by our expedient the extra six per cent., not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of the Allies as a whole. That is a question worth looking into, and I think it is worth while of the Government considering whether it is to
our interest in this matter to become collectors for the general fund of indebtedness under reparation.
The other point which I should like to put is this: The German Government could not have entered into this arrangement until they had returned to the gold standard. Under the Reparation (Recovery) Act, they could refund the amount of the deductions to their own nationals in marks. The marks being marketable inside Germany, they could be used for the payment of wages, for the purchase of material, for the conducting of their business, and, therefore, the Reparation (Recovery) Act was the only expedient upon which the German Government would have found practicable to operate, until they had stabilised their mark by means of the expedient by which they had returned to the gold standard in respect of a certain proportion. I forget when they stabilised their mark, but it is only within the last few months that they could have entered into this contract. Therefore, I say it is no disrespect to my right hon. Friend who has just sat down that he did not enter into this bargain. He could not have done it, and the German Government could not have done it. It was only after they had returned to the gold standard that they were able to make an arrangement which was an improvement upon the Reparation (Recovery) Act, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is every prospect that they will be able to pay their share. Whether they will be able to pay the very large sums which are ultimately recoverable under the Dawes Report, perhaps it is too early for us to anticipate, out the position is improving.
I had some very remarkable figures given to me to-day of the recovery in the German position. On 31st December, 1913, the total of their deposits in their principal banks came to 5,808,000,000 gold marks, which is, roughly, I think, about, £290,000,000. On 1st January, 1924, the total of their deposits in the same banks was 1,089,000,000 gold marks, which is, roughly, £54,000,000 or £55,000,000. They were down from 290,000,000 to £50,000,000 in their deposits. On 31st December, 1924, in the course of a single year, their deposits in these banks had gone from 1,089,000,000 to 3,305,000,000 gold marks. That is a very remarkable
recovery in the course of a single year. Their deposits in these banks have gone up from £55,000,000 to £165,000,000 in the course of the year 1924, and I believe there is every indication that these figures will approximate the 1913 figures by the end of this year. They are rising very rapidly. So that in itself is a matter which indicates clearly that the arrangement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, guaranteed by 800 firms, is one which is likely to materialise. I am glad, therefore, that he has been able to make it. I would, however, ask him to consider very carefully the desirability of our becoming collectors as British traders in respect of the general fund of the Allies, whether we ought ourselves to make any arrangement except in respect of our own share, but that whatever arrangement is made it will be made on the same general lines as the other Allies.
There is another question I should like to put. The French are receiving coal and other commodities. Under the Versailles Treaty, the coal arrangement is to come to an end in a certain number of years. Under the Dawes Report, there is no limit, I think, to the period. What I want to know is this: Is the value or that coal also to be not merely credited to Germany, but debited to France, Belgium and Italy on that account, exactly in the same way as the Recovery here? I am assuming it is. I should like to know upon what basis the amount is to be debited—whether is the price at the pithead, or the price which the Germans themselves could get if they were selling to France?

Mr. J. R. MacDONALD: The commercial value.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend says it is the commercial value. That is very important. That makes a very great difference, because, as my right hon. Friend knows very well, there was a good deal of difficulty about. that. The Germans did not get credit for the commercial value in the old days. That would have made a very considerable difference in the reparation they made. I should like to know whether it is the commercial value, and not the value at the pithead. Otherwise, I think the
arrangement is an admirable one, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon it.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has just given the House some figures of the deposits in German banks, and how those bank deposits have increased. I do beg of him and of the House to realise that that is one of the dangers we have to face to-day. I always considered that the German Reparation (Recovery) Bill, which became an Act that was introduced when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was Prime Minister, was probably the best Act he ever passed. I humbly say so, because I felt that it really brought payment of reparation to this country, and I am indeed sorry to hear what he has said to-day, that although it has been a success, he approves of this new arrangement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W Graham) stated that this Resolution was abundantly clear. It is not quite clear to me whether the reserve or pool is in marks or in sterling. You have not got to look at this important problem whether it will be a success to-day or to-morrow, and I fully realise that Clauses 1, 2 and 5 can be reinstated, but you must look forward five years, when the large sum of £125,000,000 has to be paid under the Dawes Scheme. This is a very large sum to transfer from one country to another, and if you had this Recovery Act in operation it might be the only way you would get any reparation at all. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs suggests we might be the collectors for other nations. Why not? Many of them owe Britain large sums.
What is the position in Germany? Germany is expanding. Germany has practically no internal debt. Our National Debt is £160 per head of the population, compared with Germany's 48 marks. Naturally Germany wants to do away with the Reparation (Recovery) Act, and I am indeed sorry that I am the only Member—or perhaps I should say one of few Members—who does not quite approve of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, this is full of technicalities, and only a technical man can deal with this interchange of money between one country
and another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to payment in marks under the Dawes scheme and the willingness of Germany to pay. Let the House realise that, although a country may be willing to pay another country, it is not always possible to pay. The external currency cannot always be bought. There is only one fund out of which reparation payment can be made, and that is by the exports being greater than the imports. That is your only fund, though, of course, there are some such items where assistance to the payment can be obtained such as gold, but I do not really think that need be considered. The main point for external payments is that exports must be greater than imports.
What is the history of this German Reparation (Recovery) Act? The original Act said it had not to exceed 50 per cent. I thought 50 per cent. too large, and I believe 50 per cent. was tried for a. few months and brought in about £12,000. It was then reduced to 26 per cent. I thought even 26 per cent. was a little too high, because it interfered with the trade between this country and Germany and between Germany and this country. When the Labour Government were in power, they reduced it to 5 per cent. I criticised that. The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh stated just now—I believe I am not misquoting him—that was all right, but he seemed to forget that the Labour Government put it up again to 26 per cent. after the Dawes Report, or perhaps I should say after the London agreement had been signed.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: We were compelled to do that, because the German Government were not standing to their bargain; in other words, our importers paid the duty.

Sir F. WISE: I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. The German Government was in a chaotic state. The German Government, owing to the terrific inflation, were paying with what is called K bonds to the exporter from Germany. Naturally those K bonds became currency, and the Recovery Act was bound to fail. But let us remember that the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh put back the actual duty of 26 per cent. on, I think, the London Agreement being signed. I quite approved of what the Labour
Government did. I think it was right because it produced reparation and that is the main thing which we have to consider. We cannot get taxation down in this country if we do not get some sort of reparation, and reparation in this way are not reparation in kind. I do not altogether agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to that matter. If a person, as he stated, bought a piano for £100, £74 was paid to the German exporter and £26 went to the Customs officials; that is not in kind; that is in cash and that is sterling. If you carry out the scheme as suggested in this Resolution it will not be a case of sterling but it will be a case of marks. Supposing you cannot transfer those marks to this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "But is that so?"] I understand so.

Mr. J. R. MacDONALD: Cannot we find out whether that is so or not Is it not the case that, as a matter of fact, there is no translation of the sterling into marks? The sterling happens to be geographically situated outside this country, but as a matter of fact it is not translated into the currency of the other country and ultimately finds its way back here as sterling, untranslated all the time.

Sir F. WISE: It has to be bought, and in the original method it had not to be bought. In the original method it was a paper transaction. Now if the Germans put sterling into the pool or reserve, that sterling has to be bought against marks. I am open to correction on this matter, but that is what I understood the Chancellor to say. I agree that we must have co-operation with Germany. I feel we must also have co-operation with our own traders, and if Germany is not willing to co-operate with us, automatically there is a failure, and you do not receive any reparation, whether it is through this Resolution or whether it is not. Reference has already been made to the present position of Germany, and I wish to impress on the House the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs as to the increases in deposits at the various German banks. It is vital for our traders that we should realise that Germany is getting stronger and stronger almost every day, and I contend that a scheme under which we were getting reparations of some sort should
not be given up. Why should we give the Recovery Act up when it is proving a success? Of course the Germans want us to give it up. I am not yet certain from what the Chancellor said, whether or not this Resolution has any dependence on the Treaty between Germany and this country which was duly put through. I should like to know also whether the Dominions have been consulted on this point. They participate in these reparations. Have they agreed to suspending the German Reparation (Revocery) Act, an Act which was practically the only scheme which has brought reparations to any country? If they agreed to such a scheme, I wonder if they understood it. I am not looking forward to next year. I am looking forward to the time when these large payments have to be made in five years' time, and I feel that this House will not be carrying out its duty unless it looks into this Resolution most carefully and understands clearly whether this pool or reserve is to be marks or sterling, and even if it is sterling, whether that sterling can be bought in four or five years' time when the larger payments have to be made under the Dawes schemes. Any hon. Member who is technically interested in this scheme should carefully consider whether it is more for the benefit of the country to leave things as they are to a scheme which is bringing in reparations under the present methods or to adopt the new proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions for the sake of clearing up a number of points which have been left in doubt even after his statement. The first question will lead up to the difficulty which the last speaker has raised. We obtain as a result of the arrangements made at Spa, 22 per cent. of the reparations paid by Germany, France obtains, I think, 54 per cent., Italy, 10 per cent. and Belgium about 8 per cent. I understood that hitherto the method followed was that each country, so to speak, got what it could from year to year. We imposed the Reparations (Recovery) Act and took what we could get, France obtained what she could get from deliveries of coal, coke and dyestuffs, and
so on, and if any country got less than its percentage a credit to that country piled up in the books of the Reparation Commission to be obtained later. I gather from the Chancellor's statement that system has now been regularised and that, year by year, each country receives its proper proportion and no more than its proper proportion. Are we to understand that if we receive £7,000,000 as our 22 per cent., France will pari passu receive £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 through payments in kind as her 54 per cent., and that Italy will receive £5,000,000 as her 10 per cent., and so on? If, as I gather from the Chancellor's statement, that is the ease, a payment of £7,000,000 a year to us involves an all-round payment of over £30,000,000 a year, and as our proportion of trade with Germany increases should it eventually become £20,000,000 or £30,000,000, that involves, according to the Spa percentages, taking the Allies as a whole, a payment of £100,000,000 to £120,000,000. Although the right hon. Gentleman's statement has been clear he has not yet explained how this arrangement is going to overcome the central difficulty of the reparations problem, namely, the difficulty of getting the money across the frontier.
May I put the position to the right hon. Gentleman? He knows that the experts laid it down in the Dawes Report that Germany was to pay a certain sum in a full year—let us say £125,000,000—but they made it clear that they were very dubious whether, in fact, that sum could ever really be transferred. So dubious were they that they set up regular machinery, the Committee to which the Chancellor referred, who are empowered to step in and refuse to allow any further payments to be made. I cannot see from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation how this proposal arranges any machinery to overcome that simple difficulty. Suppose we are being paid two years hence let us say £10,000,000 to £15,000,000. Germany cannot pay us that sum unless she is going to pay France £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 and Italy £8,000,000 to £9,000,000, and so on. She must pay altogether about five times the amount which she is paying to us, our share being only 22 per cent. of the total. I wish to know if under this arrangement it will be possible for some authority in the reparation plan to step
in and say: "If this sum is paid to Great Britain, corresponding sums must be paid to the other Allies. The total sum cannot be transferred without destroying the German exchange, and, therefore, we forbid this arrangement to go forward." This scheme cannot be put into operation unless there is some authority with the right to forbid these payments altogether, and even if that be so, I do not yet see how this scheme has succeeded in overcoming the central difficulty of the problem.

Captain BENN: Until my hon. Friend the last speaker intervened, I felt very nervous about rising to criticise that which all the great men appear to approve. I took part in the Debate in 1921, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), my geographical neighbour, and I appear to have changed places on this question. His party voted against the Bill in 1921. I did not do so, but I wish I had. We were then discussing the offer of Dr. Simon, and anyone who wants to see how wise the Allies have been may compare that offer, which was then described in contemptuous and derisory terms, with the Dawes Report. It offered £50,000,000 a year. That is what the Dawes Report offers us, but only after we have made a loan to the German nation. In regard to the old Act, our criticism was justified. We said you could not enforce it against neutral countries. The President of the Board of Trade, who is certain of every statement he makes, said "Ridiculous," but within a few months he had made an order that it should not apply to any goods except those coming direct from Germany. We said it would have a protective effect, and in the first two or three months of its operation and during the period when my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh was Financial Secretary to the Treasury it had a protective effect, and, as such, was generally recognised to be objectionable. That it produced money I do not doubt, but I am beginning to have doubts as to whether it really assisted in the restoration of Germany economically, and that, I believe, is the common end of all parties in this House. We forced the German Exchequer to pay out marks to reimburse our traders who had received these documents from us, but whether that flow of marks assisted the recovery of Germany or merely assisted to push the
mark down to destruction is a point upon which I should like a better opinion than my own.
The doubt which I have about this scheme is how far it infringes the integrity and authority of the Dawes Report. That Report lays down quite clearly that the Reparation (Recovery) Act involves payment in kind, and despite the very ingenious argument of the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), that is so. The piano comes here, and we take part of the piano for ourselves, and that is payment in kind. Having laid that down the Dawes Report gives a number of rules, on the observance of which the success of the scheme depends. For instance, it says that their organisation shall be unaffected by any foreign organisation, but there is nothing about the reparation agent having an account in the Bank of England, which appears to be part of this scheme. The deposits are to be made in the Reichsbank, and only withdrawn under conditions such as will protect the exchange. That is the point made by the hon. Member who spoke last. It says that payments in kind cannot exceed the true surplus. That is a statement which we all accept as being economically true. It also says that payments in kind should be limited as far as possible to the natural products of Germany, such as coal, potash, and so forth, and that it is economically unsound to take payments in kind when those exports involve a prior import for their manufacture—and that would happen in the case of most of the goods which Germany sends to us. That is precisely what happens in the case of most of the goods which Germany sends to us. It says again in the Dawes Report that the Transfer Committee shall have the power to make the payments under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far this scheme is going to impair the integrity of that scheme. We know that Mr. Parker Gilbert protested in the first instance against the Act being continued. Some sort of understanding has been arrived at, but we do not know what.
There is one paragraph in the White Paper, paragraph (2), on page 2, that is very difficult to understand, but the Dawes Scheme lays certain special levies on German trade. This is a new levy. and 800 traders have to pay a proportion
of what they receive in sterling to the German Exchequer. That is a new levy, completely outside the Dawes Report. Furthermore, how far have the Transfer Committee the power to say, "We cannot afford to let you keep this, because it does not represent a true export surplus from Germany"? It is easy to annex a certain proportion of German goods which come our way, and that is what we have been doing, and doing very successfully, but that is not getting an annuity from Germany unless at the expense of our Allies or at the expense of ultimate German bankruptcy. Is there an export surplus from Germany at the present time? Some figures appeared in the "Times" a few days ago showing that, whereas there was an import surplus for December, I think, of six hundred millions, for January the import surplus was increasing. If there is not an export surplus, how can you go on indefinitely by this device, clever as it is, getting a genuine contribution, except at the expense of all the other parties to the arrangement?
That is really the difficulty that I find. I am very far from wanting to see us without the money with which to pay the Americans, but if you believe in the Dawes Report, I believe it is the means of quietly letting the whole reparation issue die of malnutrition, because it says clearly that it is not a heap of marks accumulated in the Reichsbank that matters, but that it is the transfer that matters, and the Germans are not responsible for the transfer, so I believe that in years to come the Dawes Report will be the euthanasia for the whole of the passion which we feel over this question of reparation. In the meantime, it must be given a chance, and I ask if the Transfer Committee has the full power over this matter, or is there some way by which we short-circuit the organisation of the Dawes Report, in order that our coffers shall be filled while the coffers of the Allies or the smaller Allies go empty? To put it to the test, may I ask this? Supposing that every Ally were to impose a similar scheme, what would then become of the scheme arranged by General Dawes, for which the elaborate machinery was carried out, with many safeguards, very successfully, by my right hon. Friend the ex-Prime Minister?
These are some real doubts that occur to my mind, and I should be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he could clear them up.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to ask the question which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) in a slightly different form. As I understand it, in the new arrangement we are to receive as much of the equivalent of the Recovery Act money as we are entitled to under the Dawes Report. Supposing there is enough money in the German pool for us to receive our adequate share, is that to be the ground on which we are to be paid, or are we only to receive it when the money in the pool has been converted into Allied currencies for all the Allies who are to receive the money? In other words, is the criterion for payment to us to be that there is money in the pool in Germany in marks, or is the criterion to be that the money is being distributed to all the Allies in their own currency That, I understand to be the question put by the hon. Member for Keighley, and it seems to me to be a very important one.
I agree very largely with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), when he explained that in his view every payment, whether under the old Recovery Act or under the new system, was in effect a payment in kind. It seems to me that we cannot get away from the fact that any payment from Germany to this country, however it is disguised, can only operate to increase the exports in kind from Germany to this country, and pro tanto to have an injurious effect upon the exports from this country to Germany and other parts of the world, and I think that we make a great mistake if we attempt to disguise that fact from ourselves. But I did not quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith when he infers that the one important factor is the economic recovery of Germany. I think it is true that the nations of the world are so related to one another that the economic recovery of Germany is a valuable thing, not only to Germany, but to us, but I think, from our own point of view, the essential thing is the recovery of our own trade, and it seems to me what so many people forget is that the state of the exchange is of the utmost importance for
the recovery of our trade, and that when the exchange is what the financial houses think is favourable, that is the time when it is unfavourable so far as the business and manufacturing houses in this country are concerned. I believe it is a fact that at the present time the exchange value of our pound is something like 5 per cent. better than the price level would justify, and if that be the case—and it is something like the case, at any rate—that means to say that every manufacturer in this country seeking to sell his goods abroad finds that, in order to make a profit, he has to charge 5 per cent. more in terms of their currencies than he would do but for that unduly appreciative effect on our exchange.
In the midst of the general laudation of the old Recovery Acts and of the questions that are put with regard to the changes that are being made, I do not feel disposed to be laudatory of the Acts to the extent that some other hon. Members have been, because I feel that the effect of those Acts, however disguised, has really been to alter the exchange in our favour and thereby to make it more difficult for our manufacturers to produce and export their goods, and that the change that is proposed to-day is not very material with regard to that. This is how it really works: Let us take the alteration brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is suggested that on a piano costing £100 the English consumer pays £26 under the old Act to the Customs House and £74 to the German exporter. Under the new plan he pays in sterling, because it is that sterling which the German exporter hands over to his own Treasury to be sent back again to England, and the German Government pays him the equivalent in marks back to himself. So far as these 800 exporting firms are concerned, mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, it is simply that they get hold of a certain amount of sterling and that they are reimbursed from that through the German Government, which pays them marks. As far as they are concerned, it is merely an exchange problem, but from the point of view of the question of British exports, instead of the Germans requiring to take the whole of the £100 from us in goods to repay them for the £100 worth of goods they send here, they are only called
upon to take £74 of goods, because they have taken E26 in cash, and that is the injurious effect that it has upon the British manufacturer, that it lessens the demand for the manufacture of British goods. Whether one puts it in that way or in the form of unduly appreciating our exchanges, it seems to me to be a proposition of doubtful value.
To sum up, the points that I want to make are these: First of all, I do not share the general laudation of the old Recovery Acts, because, though I think they did bring us in money, I am not at all sure they have not brought it in at the expense of the recovery of British trade; in the second place, I do not think the new proposals differ as much from the old as some hon. Members, on all sides, are inclined to think; and, in the third place, I want to press the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley as to what is the determining factor as to whether we can draw money or whether we cannot.

Mr. R. MacDONALD: I only intervene to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was rather surprised at the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), because, as it seems to me, if his arguments against this suggested method of handling this problem be sound, he ought not to support the Recovery Act, because, so far as I can see, there is no economic question that is raised, especially relating to international exchange, by the new method which is not, as a matter of fact, raised by the old method. Also, the questions raised about the balance, of trade, and British exports to compensate for German exports, are precisely the same under the new method as under the old. I think, perhaps, we were never happy from the point of view of good, sound economics, even about the old.

Sir F. WISE: I was happy, because we were getting reparations.

Mr. MacDONALD: So we shall get them now, I think, in so far, and with exactly the same disturbance, as we got them before, and if we had not got the practical, business necessity of trying to make the best of things, nobody would ever dream for a moment of pursuing this policy, because it is not sound economically, but we have to cut our
coats according to the cloth of our opportunity at the present moment, and do the minimum amount of damage whilst attempting to secure the maximum amount of benefit. The question I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this: Who maintains the operations of the Recovery Act? It only changes the method by which it is done. He still, as I understand him in reply to the interrogatories put to him, maintains the 26 per cent. that is paid, in fact, into the Reparation Pool, not in the currency in which Germany pays the other portion of her reparation into the pool, but in sterling—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacDONALD: Therefore, yon are going to have two sections in the pool. You have half mark water, and the other half sterling water in this general pool. Our arrangement is that we are going to draw our share of reparation from the sterling water, so far as the British transfer is concerned—I am assuming for the moment that the economics are sound—and that it is going to be in the form which will not raise the problem of whether by exporting the contents of the pool into Great Britain the exchange value, on the international market, of German, currency is worsened?

Mr. CHURCHILL indicated assent.

Mr. MacDONALD: That is, as I understand, the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Very well. I understand also that we have made no provision to accommodate, either by a sliding scale of the 26 per cent.—which I understood him was not a business proposition—I am not sure that I agree with him, though, perhaps, on further consideration I might—at the present moment my mind is open—but if this inflow of sterling into the pool is going to be fixed upon the 26 per cent. basis, and is going to have no relation to the outflow from the pool, what is going to happen to the mark residuum? If we are to put in, say, X plus Y in sterling, and only draw out X, what is going to happen to Y? Is that going to be translated into marks, first of all, and then become subject on its withdrawal to the rules which will be imposed by the custodians of the pool for withdrawal on behalf of France, Germany, Belgium, or Italy? Is that so, or is it not so? I
think we ought to have some clearer light thrown upon that. It is this question that the outsider to-morrow, reading the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Debate, will require to be clear upon.
The other point is this: This 26 per cent. value which is going into the pool is going to be imposed on our trade. It is going to be a yield, not from French trade or from Belgium trade, it is going to be a yield from British trade. To this extent it must have a hampering effect upon our trade. I do not know what the extent is to be, but obviously it is a hampering agency. Supposing any trouble takes place, is the protection that we have under this arrangement equivalent to the protection that France has for her share in the pool itself? I do not think it is. Supposing hostility—and, thank goodness, there is no hostility at the present moment—but supposing hostility showed itself, it would be easier for Germany to penalise us than to penalise France under the Dawes arrangement. But if it is necessary for us to come to this arrangement, and not to secure ourselves that the yield, of the arrangement is equivalent to the repayments and our withdrawals, then it should stop. Why should we come to this arrangement in such a way that the Allies benefit especially from it? If we have drawn out of the pool there is still a relative loss on account of this special arrangement. Why that should come to the other beneficiaries under this Spa Agreement I do not really see. I would like to know what safeguards and what security the Treasury have to prevent that? It is very essential that as this special arrangement is with us that it should be for our benefit, whatever benefit that may be.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: was called out of the House and I did not hear the whole of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, if the questions I propose to put now have been replied to already I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. In the first place, I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman who has sat down, but I should like to have asked him several questions. In the first place, under the system that we are now getting rid of, and which I absolutely disagree from, and which is altogether unsatisfactory, if the importer of German goods could
prove—after a great deal of difficulty in these cases—that these goods were in transit for re-export he could get a refund of the amount which was claimed by the Customs. What happened in this case? We have these 800 firms who are importing German goods into this country. It is not always convenient or desirable for British merchants buying goods from Germany to indicate that they are for re-export. I should like to know whether this aspect of the case has been considered by the Treasury, the Board of Trade, and the other Departments concerned, and whether it has been discussed with Germany and how we are going to get over that difficulty? It is obvious if we are going to have this total amount levied upon everything coming to this country whether for re-export or not, the amount will be very large. I should tike to know how that matter is going to be arranged?
I think I am right in saying that neither Canada, or South Africa, or India, or even the Irish Free State levied this duty on German goods. Therefore, presumably this export tax will not be levied on those goods going to those, markets. I should like to know more about this. As has been said by several hon. Members, this has been an unmitigated nuisance to British merchants doing business with Germany. This is the sort of thing which has gone on in the past. Every package has had to be opened and inspected by the Customs, the original invoice produced. The charge in London for opening the package has been 1s. 4d. for each package, and by other authorities 1s. 6d. That has been an imposition on trade. It has done a great deal of mischief. Seeing that goods come from Germany in comparatively small packages, it has meant a tremendous amount of work, time, trouble and expense. We are thankful that has gone at any rate, and I only refer to it in passing, for I maintain my actual hostility to the original Act, which I opposed in this House. Hon. and learned Gentlemen on the opposite benches have seen the wisdom of the course of action I opposed, and the late Government's deduction of 5 per cent. suggested it. I have looked through the White Paper which we have, and I note the trouble and the nuisance of the whole business is recognised by the German and the British Governments.
Listen to these comfortable words which are in the first paragraph of the White Paper.
Whereas it is desired to reduce the burden and to remove the disabilities which the present method of administering the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921. … places upon trade and commerce between Germany and Great Britain.
That, I say, is recognised in a Government White Paper, after almost countless denials at that Box by the President of the Board of Trade, and by this and previous Governments. Look, again, at paragraph 8, on page 4:
The British and German Governments both recognise the desirability of relieving trade and commerce from the burden of collecting a 26 per cent. levy from each transaction,
etc., etc. Indeed these arguments apply to the present proposals. For it will be a nuisance to the German firms. As has been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend for Leith (Captain Benn), and by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago, it is this tax upon British trade which will not encourage the 800 German firms to send goods here and sell them in our markets, and then we shall lose our markets to Germany. For these reasons, while welcoming this relief and change, I regret very much that the Government has not taken their courage in both hands and swept away the whole of this method of collecting money. I think the Dawes Scheme is much more practicable and much better. I am not sure, however, whether it is going to be suitable, and it may be used hereafter as an excuse for not carrying it out. I should have been glad if the Government had swept away the whole thing. I have faced an election since I opposed the original method of collection. I am prepared to face the electors again, and to say what I have to say outside or inside this House, for we only do ourselves harm by trying to collect money by this means.
Just one other question. It says in the Motion that the Sections, etc., shall be operative
until His Majesty shall revoke any Order in Council which He may be pleased to make for giving effect to this Resolution.
After this Resolution has been passed by the House of Commons, if the House is not sitting will the Government be able to take action or will there be an oppor-
tunity of Parliament being consulted in the event of revocation? That question seems to me to be of some importance, because it is very desirable that merchants and importers should know exactly where they stand in any proposed alteration of this kind. I hope that experience has shown the inutility of trying to raise money in this way, and that the Government will before long come to the House and ask us to wipe the whole business out.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House, and perhaps that indulgence—if indulgence it can be called—will be extended to me. I have been asked a number of questions from different quarters of the House. I should like, in the first place, to express, on behalf of the Government, our appreciation of the satisfaction shown by the House, not only by our own supporters, but by the House as a whole, at the arrangement which we have made. That satisfaction is almost universal. There has also been a general disposition to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) upon the proved success of the method of obtaining reparations from Germany with which he was so directly concerned, and for which, as head of the Government, he was at the time responsible. Those congratulations, as I say, are almost universal, and I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will value them the less because the only two dissentients have been prominent members of his own party.

Captain BENN: We stayed in the party, anyway.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will endeavour to deal, however briefly, with a few of the questions which have been asked. First of all, let us take the two dissentient Members of the Liberal party who are in revolt against their leader upon this question.

Mr. THOMAS: They are the Liberal party.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that is perhaps excessive eulogy for them; but let us take their questions. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain
Benn) suggested that this new arrangement would in some way or other traverse, confuse and baffle the general arrangement and settlement which had been arrived at in pursuance of the Dawes Report. That is really quite an unfounded apprehension. We have throughout these negotiations kept in the closest touch, as I said, with the Agent-General for Reparation Payments and the Transfer Committee, and these arrangements were approved by a unanimous resolution of the Transfer Committee, and the whole of the new agreement, as the preamble shows, was specially drawn so as to give the Transfer Committee the control, and the exact control contemplated by the Dawes plan. We are advancing, therefore, entirely within the limits of the international arrangements which have previously been made. All the proposals in this instrument have been carefully co-ordinated with the existing provisions.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is much concerned with the difficulty which he fears will arise in the case of re-exports. It is news to me that serious difficulty has arisen under the working of the present German Reparation (Recovery) Act. I was not aware of it. Certainly no serious complaints have been made. They may have been made to the hon. and gallant Member, but I was not aware that there was any serious complaint on that point. But if there have been any, or if there has been any substantial foundation for complaint, both are equally swept away by the adoption of the new process, because no function will have to be discharged by any British importer, except to pay for the goods which he buys, and what further reactions or inconveniences there may be will take place in Germany, and there will be no effect of any sort or kind upon the imports into this country from Germany, whether they are for internal consumption or for foreign re-export.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene for a moment? This is a very important point. The German merchant sending goods to this country does not know, and it is not desirable that he should know, whether they are for internal consumption or re-export. In this scheme he will have to pay 30 per cent.
on the whole value, and therefore it is an excessive tax over and above the original 26 per cent., because a great deal of our trade is entrepot trade.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I see. I misapprehended the hon. and gallant Member's point of view. I thought he was concerned with the embarrassment of the British re-exporter, but apparently he is afraid that the 800 German exporting firms may be called upon to guarantee payment to the Reichsbank of a larger quantity of sterling than would really be due if the levy had only been calculated upon that port on of the German imports into this country which are intended for internal consumption and not for foreign re-export. Well, I do not think that the 800 German firms are likely to suffer any serious inconvenience in that respect, because, as I shall show in answer to another question, once the limits under the Spa percentages of our share in the general reparation pool has been reached, the surplus is retained by Germany in sterling and does not an any way enter into the reparations area. So much for that.
The Government were asked questions, both by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and by the Leader of the Oppositon, on the subject or the coal deliveries. All deliveries in kind obtained by France, Italy, Great Britain, Belgium, or any other Power, are credited to the general reparation pool. There has been no question of France, Italy or Belgium obtaining a large quantity of coal and that not being credited to the general reparations pool. But there is this qualification. Under the Treaty of Versailles it is arranged that during a period of eight years fixed by the Treaty the deliveries of German coal shall be accounted for to the Reparation Commission upon the basis of the German pithead price, and until that period of eight years has elapsed obviously, under the Treaty, that continues to rule. But assuming that period has elapsed, it is quite understood by our Allies that the commercial price will rule.

Mr. MacDONALD: It is specified in the agreement.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It will rule as governing the valuation to be placed upon
the deliveries in kind accounted for to the reparations pool. Then there was the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), who is one of the opponents of the general policy of this scheme, and who is concerned about the possibilities of the exchange between Great Britain and Germany being deranged by these remissions of sterling which have to be made from the Agent-General after they have been collected from the German firms. There is really no danger of any evil arising from that. When the German exporter sends his goods here he is paid in sterling bills, and sufficient of those sterling bills are delivered by him against marks to the Reichsbank. They are then transferred from the Reichsbank to the Transfer Committee, but only up to the quantity which is due to us under our share from the reparations pool. Then these identical bills, without going through any process of exchange, are transmitted by the Agent-General to the British Treasury, and no sort of disturbance of the exchange takes place. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition used an expression about their being two kinds of water in the pool—sterling water and marks water. That is not so. In the pool there are only marks, and we have a claim to our legitimate share of those marks. When the sterling which has been collected by the Reichsbank, and handed by the Reichsbank to the Agent-General, is in the hands of the Agent-General, he debits our account by the true equivalent value in marks of that sterling, and then transfers the sterling to the British Treasury. That is how the process works. That is quite clear, is it not?

Mr. MacDONALD: Quite clear

Mr. RUNCIMAN: On that point I should like to ask this question. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of transfers in marks going abroad from the transfer authority and remaining there and not disturbing exchange. At what stage are those mark bills to be encashed, and when they are encashed will they not disturb exchange then?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I explained quite clearly that the German exporters deliver a proportion of the sterling bills which they receive to the Reichsbank, and those sterling bills are in due course transmitted back to this country.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Sterling bills?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Sterling bills, and they come back through the agency of the Agent-General. Is that all tight? These are really most formidable conundrums.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Really, I think I might be permitted to go on. I have already spoken once, and I ought not to trespass unduly on the good nature and patience of the House. I want to deal with the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, which was also touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition. But let me make it quite clear that the amount of sterling which is paid by the Reichsbank to the Agent-General is limited not by what is received from the German exporter, but by the share we are entitled to under the international arrangement regulating the distribution from the pool. That is the process, and if, for instance, a much larger sum of sterling were received from this country owing to increasing German trade then we are entitled to draw from the reparations pool, the excess of that sterling sum would remain in the Reichsbank in Germany and be a part of the general credit resources of Germany, and in so far as there is any excess outside the limit of the share which we are entitled to receive, the whole of this process is automatically inoperative, and all that has taken place between the German exporter and the British purchaser is a perfectly free and untrammelled operation of international buying and selling. I think I have made that clear.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs raised a further point. He asked suggestively, "Ought we not to use any further surplus collected through the agency of this levy to increase the general volume of reparations in kind effctually delivered by Germany across the frontier?" Under the London Agreement we are not allowed to take steps without accounting for them to the Transfer Committee, and they have definitely indicated that they would disapprove of our collecting in excess of our share.
From the purely British point of view it would not be in the interests of this
country to accumulate a large quantity of sterling through this new process in the hands of the Transfer Committee beyond what is our proper share, because by so doing we should be transferring sterling from this country in considerable quantities as our trade with Germany increased, and this sterling in excess of our original share would fall to be divided upon the basis of our receiving only 22 per cent. We should, in fact, be paying a large sterling contribution to the Inter-Allied pool. It is true that when we pay 100 per cent. of our sterling to Germany it goes to Germany, but what is not needed for the purposes of reparations fructifies in the regular channels of commerce, and prepares the ground for a further economic transaction. I trust I have now succeeded in answering all the questions put to me.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question which I put to him. I want to know is the amount we are to receive under this scheme the proportion of the pool, or the proportion of what is paid to the various Allies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I do not follow the hon. Member's question.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand that according to this scheme we are only to receive as much of the Spa percentages as are permitted by the Dawes Scheme proposal. Is the amount that we are entitled to receive simply the Spa percentages from the whole pool or the Spa percentages of that part of the pool which is paid out to the Allies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Now I understand the question. Everything that is collected goes into the pool. Then, in the first place, there are the priorities which are deducted, such as the cost of the Army of Occupation and various priority charges fixed by Treaty, and so forth. Then the balance is divided between all the Allies on the Spa percentages of which our share is 22 per cent., which percentage only operates after the prior charges have been deducted.

Sir F. WISE: I understand the pool is in marks.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Supposing there are £100,000,000 sterling of marks in the pool, it may not be possible to pay the whole of that hundred million
sterling in pounds, francs and lira. Supposing that difficulty arises, are we, because of this scheme, entitled to take our whole proportion and leave the rest in marks, or shall we only be able to take that proportion provided at the same time a similar amount is paid in francs and lira.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not likely to arise; it is perfectly clear that we receive our share from the pool after the prior charges have been deducted, and that at the present time is slightly less than the rates which we are deriving from the existing Recovery Act. In the future there is very good reason for believing that under this new method only an amount of sterling will be paid in by the Reichsbank to the Agent-General equivalent to our share. It will not be paid into the pool, but we shall be debited on the pool with its mark value, and it will be handed to the Agent-General for transfer to London.

Resolved,
That whereas His Majesty's Government and the German Government have agreed that the existing procedure under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, shall be suspended and replaced by an alternative method not involving payments by individual merchants in such a way as to be without prejudice to any right enjoyed by His Majesty's Government in respect of this Act under the Dawes Plan, the London Protocol of the thirtieth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, or otherwise, the operation of Sections 1, 2, and 5 of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, shall be suspended on and after the tenth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, until His Majesty shall revoke any Order in Council which He may be pleased to make for giving effect to this Resolution.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [SALARY, ETC.].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71 A.

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the salary and pension of one additional Judge of the High Court who may be appointed under any Act of the present Session."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Sir Douglas Hogg): The Committee will remember that a few days ago we passed the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill, and under Clause 5 of that Measure it was provided, with the general assent of all parts of the House, that there was to be appointed an additional Judge in order to deal with the arrears that have accumulated in the Admiralty Division, and to make sure that that division was properly staffed. The object of this Financial Resolution, as explained by the memorandum which has been circulated, is to ensure that when the Administration of Justice Bill becomes law this new Judge will be paid the ordinary salary of High Court Judges.

Mr. RAWLINSON: This Resolution is to provide for the appointment of an additional Judge for the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. We have three Judges now in that Court, and if you appoint a new Judge he will probably not have had much practice in the Admiralty Division, and scarcely any practice in the Divorce Court. You ultimately get the ridiculous position of three Judges taking Admiralty work, and sometimes you find the same Judges doing for a whole term Divorce Court work, of which they have had no experience. Surely it is necessary that the Admiralty Judge should be attached to the King's Bench Division, so that he might do not only Admiralty work but also Common Law work, and then the Divorce Court work could be left to the two Judges who are able to do divorce and probate work. I raised this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I have never heard the idea defended that there should be any connection between the Probate, Admiralty and Divorce work, because very often the Admiralty Judge has had no experience in the Divorce Court. I hope the Government will not simply add another Judge in Admiralty work in the temporary division, but by some slight alteration do something which will secure that the Admiralty Judge will be doing common law work and not Divorce Court work.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I presume it is open to me now to make some comments upon the proposal of the Attorney-General. The Motion before the House is quite
separate from the proposal made three months ago for the appointment of two temporary Judges. This is a permanent arrangement which I am sure would be welcomed in all shipping circles at home and abroad. This is part and parcel of a much larger Bill, and I believe if he had taken the larger Measure in hand he would have got it through in two or three sittings, and we could have had the temporary Judges at work before Easter.
If this is part of the larger Bill, it will be an inducement for us getting the larger Measure through more rapidly, and perhaps the Chief Whip has that in mind. In supporting this proposal I can do so without compromising the general view that the time has arrived when there ought to be a revision of the duties of the High Court Judges, and we ought not to leave the case of Scotland out of consideration. I do not disagree with what has been said on the subject of the Probate and Divorce business being taken in the Admiralty Court, and I think there ought to be some further allocation of this work without further delay. It is essential to have the Admiralty Judge at work to transact British as well as foreign work, and I hope this appointment will be made as soon as possible.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — IMPERIAL INSTITUTE (recommitted) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third -time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAW OF PROPERTY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SETTLED LAND (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(What constitutes a settlement.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Could the Attorney-General give some information to the Committee as to what is the difference between these various Bills? I do not want him to go into the matter at length, but a few words from him would afford some guidance to us.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly. These Bills—there are six of them—which have passed their Second Reading, are merely Bills which consolidate the existing law as it is, now that the Act of 1922, sometimes called Lord Birkenhead's Act, has been passed into law, and the amending Act of last year has been passed. It is necessary, those Acts having been passed, that we should get into one Statute, if possible, the law of real property dealing with these various branches. They have been divided up into what are generally recognised as convenient branches of the law, dealing respectively with settled land, trustees, and so on. They are consolidation Bills and nothing else, that is to say, they make no alteration in the law. Having received a Second Reading in another place, they were sent to the. Committee which deals with consolidation Bills, to be examined to see that they made no alteration in the law. That has been duly certified, and we are now putting into statutory form a consolidation of the law as it stands and as embodied in the two Acts which I have mentioned.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — TRUSTEE (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — LAND REGISTRATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — LAND CHARGES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [2nd April].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS I.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £914,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."

2. "That a stun, not exceeding £1,197,440, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £331,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £247,240, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which
will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings. Great Britain."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £178;020, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £60,820, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he will explain this increase of £184,000. Is this in order to provide employment, or are we accelerating buildings, or what are we doing The expenditure on bricks and mortar by successive Governments has been very heavy indeed in recent years, and for a number of years past we have had an increase in the cost of revenue buildings. Revenue buildings once built, in the solid way in which Governments quite rightly provide for the future, should be expected to remain, and not to require very great expenditure, and yet we have this large sum of £1,300,000, which also includes very substantial increases. Let us look at some of the items of the increase. With regard to Customs and Excise buildings, there is an increase of £5,000 in maintenance and repairs. I do not know whether labour costs have gone down or not, but I rather think they have and that materials have slightly gone up, and we should have an explanation of this item of £5,000. There is a Sub-head B which simply says offices in London, £12,570 for last year and £14,800 for this year, and it goes on to say offices in England and Wales and offices in Scotland, but it does not say a word about the reason for the increase, and I do not think it is an altogether satisfactory way of presenting Estimates. Whenever there is an increase over last year's Vote, in view of the stringency of money we should have some explanation given in the Estimates.
Then there is an increase for furniture of £2,110. Might I ask again for some details and reasons for this increase. Under Sub-head C, there is simply a sub-division of furniture required for London on the one hand, England and Wales on the other, and Scotland on the third. Whereas London alone requires an expenditure on furniture of £2,400, Scotland is only allowed £400 for furniture. Is that because Scotsmen take greater care of the furniture, or that they are content with more frugal furnishing of their offices? I represent an English constituency, but I have a little strain of Scottish blood in my veins. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] If the hon. Member likes to consult me afterwards, I will tell him. This is a matter which requires some explanation. I notice that this round sum of £400 is the same as last year. When I see round sums in the Estimates of £400 year after year, I at once became suspicious. I think this is put in as a sort of safeguard and then, naturally, the Department wants to spend up to it or the money has to be returned. That is loose accounting. It is on this sort of thing that the House of Commons can do something practical to save money, and, unless I have a satisfactory account from the hon. Gentleman, I hope the House will support me in voting against it. There is an increase in insurance and rent charges and rents. If any hon. Member looked into the accounts of a company and saw a round sum of £400 for this year or last year, he would at once call for an account or he would not know his business as a director.
With regard to the Inland Revenue buildings, I see under Sub-head G, "New works, alterations, additions, and purchases." an increase of no less than £8,000. There is a sum for repairs later on, and there is an increase of £7,500. Ordinary repairs one passes, but why these additions and purchases? Is this in anticipation of the Government policy of safeguarding industry? Is this an anticipation of the re-imposition of obnoxious duties which were dropped in the last Budget? Will extra Customs officials be required to carry out the policy of hidden Protection that the Government are embarking on? On the next item, "Unemployment relief works," there is actually a decrease of £1,870.
Hon. Members above the Gangway are conspicuous by their absence. I am very surprised to see that item. For the provision of new works and accelerating the overtaking of arrears of maintenance for the purpose of relieving of unemployment such and such a sum is voted, but as to why less is being spent on unemployment relief this year than last year there is not a word of explanation in the Estimates. I invite the hon. Gentleman to give us a full explanation why, on the one hand, additions and new purchases of bricks and mortar total 28,060 for Inland Revenue buildings, and unemployment relief works, on the other hand, are down by £1,870. Furniture is up to £8,895, and rent and insurance are increased by £11,700. We are paying £1,700 more for fuel, light, water, and household articles. Why is that? Coal is down, and there is no increase in water. It is arranged by Statute as to what the water companies can charge. I do not know that there has been an increase in electric light, gas, or oil, because some of these buildings are lit by all sorts of means. The item for telephones this year is £170, against nothing in 1924–25. What is the explanation of that? Is this new building?
I turn to the Post Office. I notice the absence of the Postmaster-General when a portion of his buildings are being voted upon. The Assistant Postmaster-General is also absent. The explanation of the increase in the Vote for maintenance and repairs of nearly £81,000 is left to the overworked Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who represents the First Commissioner of Works. I look to him, therefore, for an explanation. On Post Office and telegraph buildings, new works, alterations and additions there is an increase of £72,000 odd, and yet for unemployment relief work there is a decrease of nearly £5,000. I do not think that is at all a satisfactory state of affairs, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to explain these increases in the Estimates in these times of financial stringency and the extraordinary spectacle of an actual decrease in the amount of money allowed for unemployment relief work. If it were the other way about, I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman, but this Estimate is not satisfactory, and I ask hon. Members to assist me in extracting from the Government an explanation which I hope will be satisfactory.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) criticises in a rather curious way. If the Government spend more money on buildings, he denounces them. If they spend less on building under the heading of "Unemployment relief works," he equally denounces them. As a matter of fact, building work helps the relief of unemployment whether it he done as part of the normal programme, or by way of accelerating work or overtaking arrears. I suggest that he should be a little more consistent in his criticism.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has criticised the increase in the total Vote. As a matter of fact, the major portion of that increase, to the extent of £147,000, is due to the Post Office and Telegraphs section of the Vote. During the War practically the whole of the new works building was suspended, anti during the last few years we have been doing our best to catch up arrears of work, and the provision for the coming year includes only a very few cases which have really become urgent owing to arrears. No scheme of work is passed by the Office of Works or by the Treasury unless it satisfies three conditions. Either the tenure of existing premises is insecure and you have to get new premises or new buildings, or there is a danger to health in existing premises, or, in the case of combined offices, urgent telephonic requirements become due. Also some of the increases are due to what are known as re-votes. I agree that re-votes are not a good kind of Vote at all, and I have very often had occasion to criticise them, but, as a matter of fact, the re-votes which add a good deal to this Estimate are due to certain causes which could not have been avoided. In the first place, we had a building dispute which rendered necessary a re-vote of money which could not be spent last year, we had certainly very adverse weather conditions which delayed building work, and certain legal delays took place. Now all these causes taken together have affected the Vote.
7.0 P.M.
May I take the question of unemployment? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) criticized
the fact that we are not spending enough on unemployment. I do not think he was in the House the other day when that question was raised by two hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is generally in his seat, was here when the question was raised, and when at considerable length I explained to the hon. Gentlemen opposite why it was that in the coming year we were not proposing to spend so much on unemployment relief. I can give him the reason I gave the other day. I pointed out, in the first place, that during the last three weeks we have had already Supplementary Estimates giving nearly £300,000 towards unemployment for building in the Office of Works Vote—not quite as much as that, but £256,000 during the last three weeks. Very largely, the work we are engaged in has to be done by skilled labour, especially in regard to ancient monuments and buildings. As a matter of fact, the Office of Works has practically exhausted the field for unskilled labour during the last year. We have got very little in the way of employing unskilled labour. As a matter of fact also, there is very little unemployment now among skilled operatives in the building trade, and it is really for those reasons that our programme, so far as unemployment relief is concerned, is not so big as it was. Still, as I pointed out the other day, in answer to hon. Members, if it should appear in the future advisable for the Office of Works to spend more money on unemployment relief, the matter will come before the Unemployment Relief Committee of the Cabinet, and it will be perfectly legitimate to bring in an Estimate for that object.
I think it is only courteous to reply to the other criticisms of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He mentioned the increase on the maintenance of repairs under the heading of Customs and Excise buildings—an increase of just over £5,000. It is very largely due to an increase in prices. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that prices had gone down. As a matter of fact, they have not; they have gone up, and the increase is very largely clue to the increased labour rate estimated at 8 per cent. for builders' work and 5 per cent. for engineers'. Then he asked about an increase in furniture. I think there is
an increase there of £2,000. That increase is mainly due to the provision made of furniture for an additional staff of 150 expected to occupy the various Government and Excise offices. A rearrangement is now taking place in regard to some of these offices. There are various areas in London particularly, I believe, that are being rearranged, and that for the moment has led to the requirements for furniture. We do not anticipate that owing to the rearrangement in these areas there is to be this particular item next year. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred, I think, to an increase of £12,000 in housing articles under the heading of "Post Office and Telephone buildings." Well, that sum is very largely owing to the increased cost of fuel. Fuel has gone up very considerably, and practically the whole of that increase is due to this cause. I do not know whether there were any other questions put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about the £400 for Scotland?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not at all sure that I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that offhand, but I should just like to say this, that we are anxious to get an early vote, These Estimates are based on our being able to get an early vote. We find it much more economical to get our building contracts early. If we can get them early, we get buildings done during the cheaper part of the year. It makes all the difference in the Estimates if we can get these contracts early, and these contracts are based on the assumption that the House is going to be good enough to give us an early vote. I understand that the £400 is an estimate which is taken as a sort of average every year; it may occasionally be more or it may occasionally be less. It is not as the hon. and gallant Gentleman imagines that we are going to spend 400 every year.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I move a reduction?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have had no notice, and have already put the Question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to make one or two remarks on this Vote. The first is with regard to sub-head "H" in connection with Chequers. This is a very large sum of money to spend on the protection of Chequers. I quite agree that it should be protected, though I cannot imagine anybody wishing to do any damage to the Prime Minister, apart from his politics. The amount of payments to the Bucks County Police Authorities for providing police for the protection of Chequers is £1,150, and this works out at about £25 a week. I think that is a very excessive sum. I imagine that special protection is needed only when the Prime Minister is present at Chequers. It means really only week-ends or occasionally other times. I wish he had more time there. The £25 a week for providing protection at the week-end at Chequers strikes me as a very great sum of money when we reckon, at the same time, that the Prime Minister, like other Ministers, has his "shadows," in other words, private detectives, who see that he comes to no harm. I think it is a very large sum of money, and there should be an explanation. If that is excessive, I venture to suggest that the Bucks Police Authorities have over-estimated the cost or this House is being asked to vote some of the charges that should be borne by the inhabitants of the beautiful county of Buckinghamshire.
The next item I wish to question is a matter of furniture under the sub-head "K." Hon. Members will see there an item for the general supply of new furniture and fittings, tables, chairs, etc., amounting to £33,265 as compared with £28,035 last year. There is an increase, therefore, on furniture of £5,000. I thought that the swollen ranks of the bureaucracy were gradually being demobilised. During the War we had a flood of officials of all kinds, all sorts of people, getting jobs under Government, and they were, with great difficulty, uprooted and soon had to work for their living outside. I understood that year by year the number of officials had been decreased, that War Department after War Department had been wound up, and that numbers of the Civil Service showed a consistent decrease year by year. Why, therefore, is it necessary to increase the vote for furniture by another £5,000, and
why is it always necessary to have a supply of new furniture and fittings? I like our permanent staff to work amongst pleasant surroundings with beautiful furniture and that sort of thing, but if I were furnishing an office at the present moment I should look round for substantial second-hand furniture. The Government must have sufficient furniture left over from the War Departments wound up. I rather fancy the Disposal Board were given thousands of desks, racks, and arm-chairs to dispose of which they dumped on the market and probably sold at knock-out prices. Then the Office of Works comes along and buys new furniture for other offices. What are the new Departments requiring this new furniture? Could it not have been supplied from the surplus furniture left after the winding up of these war-time Departments? We can only deplore the ruinous and expensive policy being pursued by the Government of the day, but in these little things we can criticise and point out where it seems to us there is extravagance. For that reason I had proposed to move a small reduction of the Vote.
A further item to which I wish to refer is sub-head "A"—"New works, alterations, additions and purchases." Hon. Members will be aware that the Coastguard Service has been largely reduced and partly transferred to the Board of Trade. Some of the stations have been taken over by Lloyds, and altogether those picturesque survivals of a by-gone day, popular and respected by the whole neighbourhood, have been decreased in numbers. On sentimental grounds, I deplore their departure. I find that there is a provision of residences for coastguards at Bude of £4,655 and at Burniston of £2,205. At Donha Nook, I forget where that is, the sum to be spent is £3,130, in respect of which the Vote This year is only £2,630. So it goes on. There is to be expenditure at the Lizard, Newquay, Port Isaac, Stoke—I presume that is Stoke, near Devonport—and then there is provision for the erection of cottages at Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. I do not ask for an explanation with regard to the cottages at Broadmoor, because I am sure they are necessary, but, seeing that the coastguards have been so reduced, and that all over the coast we see coastguards'
cottages and buildings being offered for sale, many having been sold and now in use as week-end cottages, I should like to know why there is this Vote for new works in regard to the coastguards up and down the coast. It seems to me that there is something wrong here, and I would like some explanation. We have to go with this Vote an increase in the amount of money for unemployment relief works, and I accept the explanation of the hon. Member. I take this opportunity of apologising to him for having been called out of the House when he was speaking the other day. I am glad that the total Vote is a nett decrease of over £35,000, and that makes up somewhat for the increase on the items to which I have referred, notably the increase of £5,000 in respect of new furniture, and the excessive cost of police protection at Chequers.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) also missed a rather good speech that I made the other day on the subject of Chequers, because exactly the same point was raised by a member of his own party, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). I had hoped that perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Leith would have conveyed to the hon. and gallant Member the information that I gave on that occasion. However, as the hon. and gallant Member has asked me a question, it is only courteous to repeat what. I said on that occasion. When Lord Lee—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not know that the matter had been raised before, and I apologise for raising it now. One cannot always be here. I am sure that the explanation is satisfactory.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is not only a question of the protection of Ministers, but these constables who are there are looking after the contents of Chequers. They act as a guard against burglary and against fire. They are there all the year round. Two other questions were raised by the hon. and gallant Member, one in regard to the increased Vote for furniture. He has rather understated the increase, which is £11,000, and not £5,000. But the increase is more than covered by the inclusion for the first time this year of £16,500 in re-
spect of services carried out on repayment terms for civil departments. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Appropriations-in-Aid on this Vote he will see that what looks like an increased expenditure is really covered by the services I have mentioned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That only comes from another Department.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: One may criticise the particular Departments that make use of the furniture, but so far as this Vote is concerned in respect of the furniture that we buy, there is an Appropriation-in-Aid, which we get from the Departments concerned. It is merely an accounting figure.

Major CRAWFURD: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department no control over the practice of other Departments in the matter of furniture?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Office of Works has no control over the policy that leads to the expenditure of public money in regard to these Departments. Our only responsibility is to see that the work of the requisitioning Department is carried out properly and economically. We are not responsible for the policy that sets the machinery going and in connection with which this furniture is required.

Major CRAWFURD: Has the hon. Member's Department no control over the scale of expenditure in regard to furniture required by other Departments?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I agree that we have to see that the money is properly expended and that there is not too much furniture bought. In regard to the question of the Coastguards, the amount in this Vote is over £85,000. The Coastguards previously were under the Admiralty, but they are now regarded from a different point of view. They are regarded from the point of view of the protection of lives at sea, and come under the auspices of the Board of Trade. We are not responsible for the particular line of policy. We are responsible for buildings and upkeep. Many of these buildings are in a very dilapidated condition and are now being brought into a satisfactory state, as far as possible.
Those mentioned in the Estimate are new buildings which are being put up at the request of the Board of Trade with a view to the protection of life at sea. These buildings are all round the coast. Some of them are in very inaccessible places, necessarily, because when you protect lives at sea you very often have to put up buildings which are not near any other houses and not near any good roads. Therefore, the cost of putting up these buildings is much greater than if we were building them in more habitable quarters. That is very largely responsible for the extra cost.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have you not furniture left over from Ministries that have been dispensed with?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Whenever we can get furniture in that way we do so, but, supposing the policy of one Department is to increase the number of persons engaged in particular work, we have to find furniture for those people, chairs, etc. We have to see that that furniture is bought economically, and that we do not get too much furniture per person. When we have done that, and done our best to see that the transaction has been efficiently and economically carried out, our responsibility practically comes to an end.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What happens to furniture when the number of officials is reduced?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If officials are reduced in any particular Department or in any particular service, the furniture not required would be used in the case of officials who happen to be increased in another service.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I preface my remarks on this Vote by saying that I consider that many of our Consular and Diplomatic buildings abroad are not as imposing and well-built as they should be. I do not desire to criticise any necessary expenditure on such build-
ings, especially in the East, where the prestige of this country very largely depends on our having suitable and imposing buildings for the Diplomatic and Consular Services. It is in that spirit that I oppose this Vote. What is being done at Angora? That is an extremely disagreeable mountain city, but it is the capital of the Moslem world to-day. Our Embassy or Legation in Turkey lingers on in Constantinople. Several other Powers represented in Turkey, particularly the Germans—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that this is in the Estimate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, on page 33.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think it is in this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know whether there is any item of expenditure in the Vote for Consular buildings at Constantinople, in the old city of Stamboul, and along the Bosphorus at the summer residence of the Ambassador. If so, the money would be much better spent in sending at once our diplomatic representative to Angora. My information from Turkey is that we are suffering by not having our representative in Angora. I do not want, however, to pursue that question. Is any money being allowed for Consular buildings in Russia? There is a very important market for our goods there, and it is important that we should have Consuls there. I have been putting questions to the Government about Consular officers in Russia. It is extraordinary that we have only Consuls at three places in that great country, at Petrograd, Moscow and Vladivostok. There is not a single British Consul on the Black Sea. I am told that ships discharging on the Black Sea are experiencing difficulty, because there is no Consular building there and no Consul. There cannot be a Consul without a Consular building. Has the hon. Gentleman used foresight in this matter, and is he asking for money so that there will be no delay when the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office wake up to the facts?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to raise a point of expenditure which is not contained in the Estimate?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is suggesting that we should sent representatives, but that is a matter of policy, which must be raised on another Vote. At the present time, under this Vote, we are only responsible for housing people who are there.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The information I get is not that the Government do not intend to send Consuls, but that they are negotiating on this and cognate questions with the Government of the Soviet Union, and I presume that when these matters are settled Consuls will be sent. I make this suggestion to the hon. Gentleman and hope that it will receive attention.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am glad to respond to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has said. It would be out of order on this Vote to deal specifically with the points which he has raised. They are really a matter for the Foreign Office. All I will say is that, if the Foreign Office approached the Office of Works and said that they considered it expedient to carry out the suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we should be only too delighted to put the work in hand, and we should come to this House for sanction for the expenditure.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HARDIE: In reference to the question of the improvement of the ventilation of this House, I would ask whether the engineers responsible for the air supply to this House have considered the question of the level from which the air is taken

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am very glad that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hardie) has raised this question. We are asking in this Vote for a sum of about £2,000—the eventual cost will be about 4,000—to do what we can to improve the ventilation of this House. We shall never be able to deal fully with this question in existing conditions. The Chamber is overcrowded when all the Members are here, and without a bigger Chamber we can never possibly deal completely with this matter. But we are going to do our best to
alleviate the present conditions. At the present moment, the air comes from the Terrace, through a water strainer, and it is then conducted through a passage into the Chamber. It then comes through openings here above the Gangway and comes up under every seat on which hon. Members sit. In the past, owing to the fact that we get so many school children coming into the House, they generally left a great deal of dust on the floor, so that when Members came here to take part in our business the air coming up through the floor had the effect of blowing all this dirt and dust into Member's lungs. Though the air has been perfect when it entered the Chamber, by the time it reaches the lungs of Members it becomes anything but pure. During the last few weeks hon. Members may have noticed that we put in a mat blow the Gangway, which can be rolled up and taken away when the House starts business, in order to prevent that dust reaching the lungs of hon. Members.
The worst system in the world is to get air coming up which makes the feet cold. What we intend to do with this £2,000 is this. We are going to restrict the amount of space in the floor through which the air comes up. We are going to do away with all the inlets for air under the benches where hon. Members are sitting. We are going to instal instead hot-water pipes under the benches where hon. Members sit, and we are going to bring in the air at a rather reduced temperature. In addition to that, we are going to make a new inlet for air, and that inlet is going to run around the Chamber where hon. Members can see a little brass ornament running all the way round. That will not be unsightly, and there should be another outlet for that air after it gets in at the top. The effect will be that there will be very much less air coming in through the floor, and none from under the benches, and there will be two currents of air on each side of the Chamber over the heads of hon. Members. I believe that the result will be, in combination with the hot-water pipes under the benches, that the air when it reaches the feet will be warmer, but that the air for the lungs will be rather cooler. I may say that this suggestion was tried on a small-scale model in the British Physical Laboratory, and that then a full-
scale experiment was tried here in the Chamber itself with smoke, and it was found to give very satisfactory results. We are asking for £2,000 in the forthcoming year. The whole thing will cost £4,000. It is an experiment, and personally, as I suffer from as many headaches as most hon. Members in the course of my membership of this House owing to the bad atmosphere, I am as anxious as anybody that there should be something done to relieve the existing position, and I hope that the experiment will prove very useful.

Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Member has given an explanation as to how this money is to be spent, but he has left out the most important thing. That is the level at which we take in the air which we bring into the House. It is well known to those who have sat through all-night sittings in this House that, whatever the foul contents of a barge which may be passing up the river, the heavier the gas the easier it is for it to get into this House, because we take in the air at the lowest level next to the water. Under this new scheme, you are not altering that. You are not altering the source of your supply. Therefore, no matter what other arrangement you make, you still bring into this House the heaviest part of the air. It is all very well to say you are going to alter that, and things are not so bad with the temperature as low as it is now in spring. But you have to realise that the hot weather is coming on, and even the motor traffic across the bridge has a great effect upon the quality of the air coming into this House, because every motor that passes produces a certain amount of C.O., and if you examine the matter you will find that that gas comes on the surface of the water and it is attracted by the suction at the Terrace and comes into this House.
This scheme appears to me to be going about the matter in a backward way. You start here and make alterations without considering the first of the two things of importance in connection with the ventilation of this House. There is, first, the quality of the air, and, second, its distribution, but I am more interested in the quality of the air than with its distribution. It may be said that the skilled gentlemen, as they are, at the National Physical Laboratory
have been testing the proposition which is submitted to them, but, if you told them that you took your air in from the terrace level, they would not approve of it. If you are going to get what is suitable, you must take the air at the highest point of your slated roof. If you are to get fresh air that must be done, and it can be done, and you have still an opportunity of introducing that into this Chamber and dispensing with all the contraptions on the floor. I agree entirely that whatever may be brought in by the soles of the boots of hon. Members is hound to find its way into their lungs, but I wish to make it clear that it seems to me that you are going to spend this money for nothing, because you are not improving the quality of the air.
I would be prepared to vote not £2,000 but £10,000, as I would anywhere else, to try to get the best air for everybody. But, coming to the question of seating accommodation in relation to the ventilation, it seems to me that the British Empire, with this Chamber as its hub, does not impress the visitor when he realises that while we have 615 Members there are not seats for all the Members, and, if you put the proposition to the gentlemen at the National Physical Laboratory that you wanted the cubic contents of air for 615 Members, you would give them the size of the Chamber. But I presume that you did not do that. If you put the proposition to them to work out a scheme of ventilation, you would give them the exact allotment of space for each Member. But you did not do that. It seems to me to be waste of money to spend £2,000 in simply patching that which is wrong at the source. It would be far better to leave that alone and to come forward with a sound proposal to get new air.
For instance, where Mr. Speaker sits the first of the air and the first of the smells comes in, and I was sorry for Mr. Speaker one night, when two barges passed laden with carbon disulphide going up to the gasworks, almost suffocated those of us who were sitting here. Therefore, the question of the seating is the basis upon which you must calculate the quantity of air that must pass through the House. I am surprised that hon. Members have not been making more row about the dimensions of this House. There is nothing that I see in the building
to prevent this Chamber being altered so as to provide seating accommodation for every Member. We have of course the space behind you, Sir, and the width of the corridors and rooms which are seldom used, and all that could be taken in, and seating accommodation for all Members provided, and I am surprised that we, who are at what is claimed to be the hub of our great Empire, should always be so negligent of that which is the basis of our power. It may be said that there are plenty of seats to-night. That is not the point. The point is that when there is something very interesting in this House all the. Members cannot get seats, and the necessary alterations to extend the accommodation could be made when you are making the alterations for improving the air supply.
If I wanted to go on I could go on all night so far as the system of ventilation is concerned, because I have read the history of the experiments which were made, washing through acid, through coke, charcoal and everything else. But there is no use in starting to wash when you are taking your air from the lowest level. That is why it is good to have dogs and cats going about to swallow that stuff. They can live in it, but it is not good for us. I hope that the gentlemen in charge of the matter will see to this before they go on spending this money in what I consider a slipshod way. I am not going to say anything against the experts' opinion, as they had not all the facts before them or they would not have given you the answer which they gave when they approved of a certain proposition which was put before them. You have taken no steps to provide a fresh supply of pure air. All that you have proved by your experiment is the movement of currents of air. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that before he goes on to spend this money he will take care that something valuable is done, and not this kind of a job.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: May I draw the Minister's attention to the lighting of the House? I suggest that the lighting in many parts of the House is by no means up to the pre-War standard or the standard to which Members of the House are properly entitled. I would draw attention especially to the lighting in the Secretaries' room; it is badly arranged
and quite insufficient. Quite apart from that, there are many other parts of the House where there is wiring for light and no lights have been installed for many years past.

Major CRAWFURD: I cannot speak with the deep knowledge or the clarity of exposition of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), although I would throw some doubt on what he said owing to certain things which I read in past times about the diffusion of gases. I assume that with ventilation, as with Governments, we are probably compelled to make the best of what we have. The point I wish to emphasise is that I have had addressed to me complaints as to the very bad quality of the air in the Public Galleries of the House. Though I cannot speak as an expert, I would ask the Minister to inquire of the experts whether it is not possible in improving the ventilation on the Floor of the House, to improve also the ventilation in the Galleries?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I can speak again only with the permission of the House. The hon. Member for Springburn has said that if the air brought into the House were taken from a higher level it would be better. That idea was put before the Committee, and it was pointed out that by adopting such a method you do not get rid of the smells from barges on the river; the smells reach the House just as much as when you bring the air in from the Terrace level. Moreover, if the air is brought in from a high level you get with it smoke that you do not get en the Terrace level. What the hon. Member for Springburn has said deserves consideration. After all, we have to consider the pressure of expense. I wish the House could spend £100,000 in providing a proper Chamber for all to sit in under ideal conditions, for I think that in such a Chamber we could do better legislation. It is really a question of expense. We are trying with as little money as possible to improve existing conditions. The new system will very much improve the condition of the air in the Public Gallery. With regard to the lighting of the House, I shall be very glad to look into the question, and if the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) can send me a note specifying where he thinks the
lighting is bad, we will do our best to get it improved.

Mr. SPEAKER: There being business down for 8.15, I shall now leave the Chair until that hour.

Orders of the Day — CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASSES.

Mr. WINDSOR: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the destitute and impoverished condition of the Working Classes, which is inherent in the present economic and industrial system, constitutes a grave menace to social stability and industrial peace, and, whilst welcoming both legislative action and industrial agreements that ease immediate hardships, this House declares that no permanent solution of the problem is possible apart from progressive advances towards the social ownership and democratic control of staple industries and the banking system.
I am glad to observe from the Order Paper that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have taken up this issue and made it a very clear one. They have put down an Amendment to my Motion, in which they state that
the well-being of all classes being dependent on the maintenance of the present economic system, any attempt to undermine it constitutes a grave menace to society.
That, it seems to me, brings us to the fundamental issues and I hope to show that the present economic system is by no means to the advantage of the working-classes. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister made a very eloquent plea for peace. He was attempting to defend the party of which he is leader and to proclaim the difficulties with which he and his colleagues were immediately faced, but although he made a striking speech, possibly one of the best made in this House for many years, yet that speech indicated to me that the right hon. Gentleman recognises this economic position—that whether we like it or not, a class struggle is taking place in our midst. In making that plea the Prime Minister admitted that in his earlier days there was a direct association between the employer and the employé, but with the development of business they became further apart and the struggle became more and more keen. The right hon.
Gentleman showed the development of trusts and combines on the one hand and the development of the trade union movement on the other, and he also showed that the two could not intermingle. The plea of the Prime Minister was
Give us peace in our time, O Lord.
We on these benches are under no delusions on this matter. There can be no peace in our time while there are economic differences such as exist at the moment. There cannot be peace while we have aggregations of capital on the one hand and pauperism, starvation and unemployment on the other. One need only refer to the writings of a previous Prime Minister—Benjamin Disraeli, afterwards Earl of Beaconsfield—to find support for this view. In his book "Sybil" or "The Two Nations"—I take it he meant by the "two nations" the working class and the exploting class—Disraeli wrote:
I had long been aware that there was something rotten in the code of our social system—fortunes accumulating and wealth increasing, whilst our working class, the creators of wealth, are steeped in poverty.
In another passage he says:
If a spirit of rapacious covetousness, desecrating all the humanities of life, has been the besetting sin of England for the last century and a half, since the passing of the Reform Act the altar of Mammon has blazed with triple worship. To acquire, to accumulate, to plunder each other by virtue of philosophic phrases, to propose a Utopia to consist only of wealth and toil, this has been the breathless business of enfranchised England for the last 12 years, until we are startled from our voracious strife by the wail of intolerable serfage.
That was the statement of a previous Tory Prime Minister, and we on these benches can describe it as, unfortunately, only too true. It is not our business to preach a class war. We do not preach a class war. It is hon. Gentlemen opposite, and some of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who are responsible for the existence of this class war. We on these benches rather desire to get rid of it. We have seen in the Press that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has suddenly discovered that there are 15,000,000 capitalists in this country. How he arrives at that figure only the right hon. Gentleman himself can tell. He has taken into account War Savings Certificates—the twopences and pennies of the school children and the savings in the Post Office Bank. He is perfectly well
aware that in fixing this figure of 15,000,000 capitalists he has taken into account all the shopkeepers and all those living on exploitation and price manipulation in connection with the commodities which our people purchase. There is no need for hon. Members on these benches to reply to a statement of that kind. Hon. Members below the Gangway may be referred to their own school of political economy. Professor Clay, who holds a chair of political economy at Manchester University, makes the following observations:
What Mr. Runciman calls 'the stupendous total of £777,834,000' is not more than 5 per cent. of the national capital—not a large proportion to be held by 15,000,000 capitalists. On the other hand, allowing a considerable margin for error, it is probably safe to say that over two-thirds of the national capital is held by less than 2 per cent. of the people.
That was published in the "Times" of 24th March, 1925. Judging from the Amendment to my Motion, we are asked to assume that all is well under the best of all possible systems, in the best of all possible worlds. If we examine what is taking place under this system, what do we find? The Minister of Health, replying to a question on 17th March, said that in 1924 we had a total expenditure of £38,000,000 on Poor Law relief. We find over one million people are in receipt of Poor Law relief. If we take into account the dependants of the people in receipt of that relief, the figure is probably nearer four million than one million, which means that one in every ten of the population of this country is dependant upon institutional relief of one kind or another. If for no other reason—and I am going to show many more—the capitalist system stands condemned. Let us examine one or two of the large centres of population, so that we may be more clear as to the actual meaning of this system. I take Birmingham as an example. Judging by the representation which Birmingham has on the Front Bench opposite, it should be one of the best cities in this country. I do not propose to go through the figures month by month, but I will take them out haphazard to get at what they actually mean.
In January of this year, five weeks, there were 24,292 persons in receipt of domiciliary relief, and 7,127 persons in receipt of institutional relief. In February, four weeks, there were
21,942 and 7,157, respectively. It says in a footnote that of the total number of persons in receipt of domiciliary relief on the 1st January, 1925, 51 per cent. were under 16 years of age, 46 per cent. between 16 and 70 years of age, and 3 per cent. over 70. Ex-service men and their dependants constituted 47 per cent. of the persons in receipt of domiciliary relief on the 3rd May, 1924, and 17 per cent. of the persons in receipt of institutional relief. We will now take Manchester, and that information will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 2nd April, 1925. In January, five weeks, there were 19,846 men, women and children in receipt of domiciliary relief, and the number in receipt of institutional relief was 7,312. After that came the famous Circular issued by the present Minister of Labour, and during those four weeks, in February, 1925, we find that 20,381 were in receipt of domiciliary relief and 7,473 in receipt of institutional relief. Of the total number in receipt of domiciliary relief on the 1st January, 1925, 48 per cent. were under 16 years of age, 48 per cent. between 16 and 70 years of age, and 4 per cent. over 70 years of age. The corresponding percentages for those in receipt of institutional relief were 31, 51 and 18. Ex-service men and their dependants constituted 32 per cent. of the persons in receipt of domiciliary relief on the 3rd May, 1924, and 11 per cent. of the persons in receipt of institutional relief.
Hon. Members will remember, of course, that when ex-service men took part in the late War they were told that they were taking part in a War in order to make this a land fit for heroes to live in. In fact, they were coming back to a land of hope and glory. They were not coming back as those who took part in the South African War did. They were not coming back to grind barrel-organs, and to the selling of matches in our streets. They came back faced with pauper relief, after fighting for what they thought to be a beneficent country in a beneficent age, and under what one would consider to be, judging by the Amendment on the Paper, a most glorious capitalist system—one that it would be a shame to destroy.
Let us now look at the state of unemployment. It will be remembered that
the Prime Minister during his election campaign, like all other political parties, was going to solve the unemployment problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "You were!"] The only difference is that you accuse us of having the only cure, which, by the way, we have. You believe in doing it by slow measures and slow processes, hoping that the people will die, so that you may not have to get on with the work. We say, and have said from our Front Bench and from our Back Benches, that, given a good working majority, we can solve the unemployment problem, but only by the abolition of the capitalist system. Someone behind me says that even the rich people would have to work. I can only suggest that if they did there would be an increase in the death rate, but let us look at the state of unemployment. We find that on 23rd February last in Glasgow there were 75,051, in Liverpool 58,604, in Manchester 30,473, in Sheffield 24,320, in Leeds 17,457, and in Newcastle-on-Tyne 16,509 unemployed, and that the total in the whole of the country was 1,287,048. In other words, taken in conjunction with their dependants, one in every ten is dependent upon the Employment Exchange for means of livelihood.
Now turning to the question of wages, it is always supposed that a wage is the price which a workman is paid for working so many hours per week, and it has always been assumed that some of these are living wages. In reply to a question that was asked in this House a little while ago, it was stated that agricultural labourers have had an increase in wages, but a large proportion of them are working for 25s. to 28s. a week, and others for 29s. to 31s. a week. In the iron and steel industry the average wage has been given at 51s., yet all those who know the industry and who are associated with it know perfectly well that, those figures are not true. In speaking at Smethwick last week, I was informed by persons working in this industry that the minimum wage was 32s. 6d. per week, and in the engineering trade in the same town the lowest minimum wage was £2 0s. 6d. We, on these benches, know that all kinds of minimum wages have the tendency always to become the maximum in an industry, and an industry that is dependent, as that is, upon low wages ought to go out of private ownership and be placed in the hands of national
institutions, so that if private owners cannot make these things pay, they should be handed over to the community to see if they cannot make a better job of them than the capitalists have done and are doing.
I see hon. Members opposite smile, but I do not see anything to smile at. I do not know whether they are smiling at the nationalisation of industry or at the fact that there are such low wages paid in this country. Of course, they would not be so inhuman as that, but if our bon. Friends opposite will carry their minds back to the War, they will find that one of the methods by which you won the War, was by the control of your industries, nationalised. If you found a landlord standing in your way, you removed that landlord. If you found a manufacturer or producer standing in your way, you removed them. That was during a time of emergency, when there was a war on, which you wanted carried out properly, or to be dealt with efficiently, the quarrels that somebody else had made for us. When, however, it comes to a question of our people, that obviously is a different matter. But to my mind it is not! I have given a few figures in regard to the capitalist. Now let us see what one of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, or rather one who used to sit opposite, has to say about capitalism itself. I refer to Mr. Lort Williams, K.C., the late Member for Rotherhithe. On the 11th March he wrote an article to the "Evening Standard." He opened that article by an appeal to the Prime Minister. He said that he has got to get a move on if he wants to stay social revolution in this country. He continues:
Electors have been driven to the conclusion that no hope of thorough reform, no comprehensive attack upon the intolerable evils of our social system can be expected from any of the older parties.
Meaning, I presume Members of the party opposite, and Members below the Gangway. Again, Mr. Williams says:
Tranquility in 1923 has become Stability in 1925. But tranquility in the slum is the silence of death. A workless, half-starved, hopeless people means stagnation or worse, not stability! This is the moment rather for action, and service, and sacrifice for a national upraising as great as in the war year. One and a half million of willing able-bodied workers cannot earn the means to live. The law forbids them to work. They may not build themselves
houses.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. WINDSOR: They may not grow their own food, nor make their own tools, nor clothe themselves. They may not even anticipate death. The only right which the law gives them is to claim a charitable dole, just sufficient to sustain life, but in a country teeming with wealth no part of it is theirs. A further 2,000,000 are dependent on the Poor Law. One million people are qualified by poverty to draw the pittance of an Old Age Pension. According to Mr. Clay, 2,500,000 out of a population of 47,500,000 own the entire wealth of the country.
That is not a statement by a Socialist Labour man, a Bolshevik or a Communist. It is a statement by a Tory King's Counsel, who goes on to say:
Then years ago the national income was £2,000,000,000. One million persons had incomes over £160 per annum. Their aggregate income was over £1,000,000,000, or half the entire national income. Half the land of the British Isles was owned by 2,500 persons. Out of £300,000,000 left at death in one year 4,400 persons owned £212,000,000. Out of 670,000 persons who died 594,000 left nothing or less than £100. To-day these monstrous discrepancies of fortune are even worse. If a future Labour Government orders a capital levy on estates of over £1,000,000, 95 per cent. of the electorate will be untouched by such taxation.
These are not statements, as I have said, of a wild Socialist, but from one of the friends of the Conservative gentlemen opposite. I have had a few words with regard to the industrial capitalist side of the matter. I want now to add one word in regard to the landowners and those who are controlling the destinies of house building in this country. What I am going to refer to can be seen in the various Government books, or documents, to be had on application from the Vote Office. The early days, when committees of inquiries were being set up and the local authorities were purchasing land, is the period to which these various figures apply. The Acton Urban District Council acquired 58,854 acres, the purchase price being £33,000. The annual net rateable value of this was £110. The Beckenham Urban District Council acquired five acres at Shortlands, and for this they paid £1,829; the net rateable value was taken to be £5 7s. The Blackburn Council purchased 13.42 acres, for which they paid £2,280, the net rateable value being just over £30. But let us come a little nearer home and see how
London fares in this matter. The London County Council purchased at Beacontree 2,050 acres, the purchase price of which was £295,544. This had a net rateable value of £3,590. In connection with the London County Council estate at Bellingham. 252 acres were bought at a price of £50,339 and the net rateable value was £490. [An HON. MEMBER: "Trade unions!"] This is a trade union of landlords. The London County Council purchased 148 acres at Roehampton and they paid £120,000 for it. The net annual value was £951. In short, altogether 3,006 acres are included in the table from which I have quoted. The aggregate price paid was £582,509 and the aggregate annual value on which the land had been rated was £6,053. When houses are going to be put on these respective estates it can be safely assumed that these houses will be rated at £40. That will mean that the figure will suddenly be changed from £6,053 to £1,442,880. Let it be remembered that hitherto the landlords have not paid the true valuation of their land, or if they have, then they have deliberately robbed the community. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to smile at these figures, but these figures are worthy of serious consideration so far as housebuilding is concerned. The people of this country know what that means. It means increasing the rent of working-class houses. I will not detain the House any longer. I want to thank the House for the patient hearing it has given me on this opportunity of making my first speech in the House.

Mr. DUNNICO: I beg to second the Motion.
From time to time this House is called upon to discuss a great many subjects of more or less importance, but I venture to suggest that none is more important than the one raised by this Motion. The one outstanding subject overshadowing all others to-day, the one doctrine is making more converts than any other political creed, the one force influencing legislation more than any other force to-day, is the force of Socialism. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends on the opposite benches may smile, but they know perfectly well that the outstanding political decision which the people have got to make is for or against Socialism. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have
given their decision!"] To-night, therefore, we are not dealing with some academic question, but with something which is of vital importance to the nation. Even though hon. Members opposite may differ from us, there is no reason why we should not seriously discuss the matter with calmness, and even if we fail to agree at least we can respect each other's opinions. My hon. Friend who introduced this question supported the resolution with a vast amount of detailed information and a wealth of statistics. I will not attempt to follow him along that line of argument, but will approach the subject from a somewhat different angle. I think Members upon both sides of the House are fairly agreed on the general facts as to poverty, unemployment, and destitution in this country. Those facts have been verified, they are based upon authentic information, and they can be ascertained. We begin to differ when we discuss the causes of that poverty and that destitution, and especially when we begin to indicate the direction in which the remedy lies.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), speaking on this subject about two years ago, said, what is quite accurate, that at the beginning of the 19th century the population of this country numbered approximately 11,000,000. He went on to point out that the growth of population in this country would never have been possible if it had not been for the operations of what we call the capitalist system of society. I am not able to follow my hon. and learned Friend's reasoning quite so clearly as I usually can, but I pass that by. I want to deal with another aspect of his statement. While the population was about 11,000,000 at the beginning of the century, it is to-day, roughly speaking, 44,000,000, During the last 120 years the population has multiplied itself approximately four times, but during the same period the power of the people to produce what they require in the form of food clothing and shelter has been multiplied not four times, but 40 times, 100 times, 500 times, and in some instances actually 1,000 times. Take agriculture, textiles, engineering, transport—the argument holds good in any direction. I want to submit this proposition to my right hon. and learned Friend, or to the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who is going to speak. Supposing he had
lived 120 years ago, supposing he had been gifted with prophetic insight, and could have foreseen that during a period in which the population had multiplied itself four times their power to produce would be multiplied 100 times or 500 times, what would he or any other sensible man have predicted? He would have predicted that to-day there would be a system of society in which no deserving man, woman or child would lack the essentials of a decent life. But what do we find? That poverty is more widespread, life more intense, and the struggle for existence more keen than ever.
That is the problem we are up against. During the last 120 years, owing to inventive genius and mechanical skill, we have solved the problem of production. We have produced on a scale beyond the wildest dreams of men who lived at the beginning of the last century. Our powers of production to-day amount almost to the miraculous—they are miraculous to those who understand production; and what we say is that this production, instead of being a blessing, has become a curse, instead of being a help, has become a hindrance. These wonderful, marvellous powers of production, instead of ministering to human needs, to-day cause a glut, choke the world's markets, and cast on to the streets millions of people who want to work, who are able and anxious to work, but who are compelled to live upon relief, or on what hon. Members opposite sometimes term the "dole."
May I ask for the indulgence of the House whilst I try to indicate how, in my opinion, this state of affairs has come to pass. One hundred and twenty years ago the power by which the work of the world was done was muscular. When the work of the world was done by man's muscle, production was individualistic, industry was individualistic. Every man, according to the hon. Baronet, was then a capitalist, and I do not quarrel with him if that is his interpretation of a capitalist. At that time every man had the power of production. Every man could set to work and produce. But the coming of the stationary steam-engine de-individualised power, de-individualised production, de-individualised industry. Men began to gather round the engine, and we had the beginnings of the present industrial system.
If the House will pardon me for making a personal reference by way of illustration, I will give it. I happen to be a Welshman; I am not responsible for it, but am proud of it. My grandfather and my grandmother died at the ages of 94 and 95 respectively. They lived all their lives in a small Welsh village among the hills. My grandfather had built his own house. He had made many of his own tools at the village smithy. He had made most of his own furniture. He could fan hides, make leather, make his boots and make his clothes. My grandmother, along with him, could look after the farm. She could churn, make cheese and butter, take the wool from the sheep's back and pass it through all the various processes necessary to make cloth to clothe her children. My grandfather and grandmother knew at least a dozen or 15 trades, and knew them well, and if they had been pitchforked on to Robinson Crusoe's Island they could have provided all that was necessary for their family.
But the coming of the steam engine and the industrial order has destroyed all that, and it has gone for ever. To-day, instead of one man knowing eight or 10 trades, it takes eight or 10 men to know one trade. To-day, instead of one man being able to do 50 things it takes 50 men to do one thing. I was in Northampton not long ago, and my host took me through a very fine boot factory. The manager told me that every pair of boots made tin the factory passed through some 64 or 68 different hands. Consequently, the boot operative, instead of knowing eight or ten different trades, as my grandfather did, knows from one sixty-fourth to one sixty-eighth part of one trade, and each workman is dependent upon the other.
In these days of combines, trusts and syndicates, not only are men in one factory dependent upon each other, but factories are dependent upon each other. We have our great allied trades and a miners' lock-out or a transport strike may paralyse the whole industry of the country. What we have done is this. We have socialised production and made it collective. We have made production co-operative, and what we assert is that that which is produced collectively by co-operation should be
controlled collectively and controlled by co-operation. We may be right or we may be wrong, but, at any rate, our proposition is entitled to intelligent consideration. Whether we are right or wrong, our challenge is that, if our remedy is not a remedy, produce yours! Surely you have had your chance. The Conservative party and the Liberal party of this House have held not only office, but they have held power by magnificent majorities, and they have from time to time passed Acts of Parliament which have toned down a hardship here and eased slightly a burden there, but I have failed to find, after a long study of the history of this Parliament, a single act passed that has ever gone down to the root causes of poverty. This is what we ask, and that is our challenge.
I am not prepared to-night to waste the time of this House in dealing with the silly and foolish criticisms that some people pass upon Socialism. When a learned and an able Member of this House stands up and talks about State-pattern house, State-pattern dresses, and State-pattern shoes, it indicates nothing to me except how stupid and foolish at times an able man can be. We are told sometimes that Socialism is a violation of liberty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] What do hon. Members opposite mean by liberty? I happen to be a member of two large public health authorities, one of them in a town with a population of 100,000, the other in a county with over 1,000,000 people in it. In that town in that county, no sane or sensible citizen ever complains that we interfere with his domestic or private arrangements. The only time a public health authority interferes is when some individual is so conducting his domestic arrangements as to interfere with the welfare and the health of other people.
9.0 P.M.
I have just been reading the speeches which were made in 1870 when the Education Act introduced compulsory education, and I find that the very same arguments now used against Socialism were used at that time. We were told that compulsory education would interfere with liberty and domestic privacy and that the appointment of a school attendance officer would do away for ever
with the idea that an Englishman's home was his castle. If hon. Members opposite believe all that, then Socialism does interfere with liberty. The man who conducts his life and his affairs without interfering with the liberty and welfare of others will be far safer under Socialism than under the present system of society.
May I briefly call attention to two points in the Resolution. What we ask for in the Motion is the democratic control of industry and the democratic control of the banks. Is there an argument logical and reasonable that has not been raised against political democracy? In the early days of political evolution we were again and again told that to give miners, agricultural labourers and tinkers the vote would bring about the downfall of the country. We were asked what stake miners, agricultural labourers and tinkers had in the country? But the years have passed, the franchise has been extended, and to-day we have practically universal adult suffrage in the land. We have widened and spread political power, and what I want to ask hon. Members opposite is this. If the people of this country are competent and Worthy of being entrusted with the appointment of statesmen and leaders to conduct the affairs of the nation which affect the destiny of the world, why should not the self-same people who invest their lives in industry have control of the means by which they live?
May I just make one reference to banking? I believe that there are thousands upon thousands of people in this country who are not Socialists, who would repudiate being called Socialists, but who are being driven by sheer intellectual necessity to the position that the nation must, in its own interest, control its currency and credit. Within the last few years we have seen a gradual centralization and control of the finance of this country in the hands of a few men, and I say that this House may pass legislation, this House may think it rules and think it governs, but, so long as currency and credit are in the hands of a small group of men, they can largely nullify every Act passed by this House. If anyone should question that, may I quote a statement made, not by a Socialist, but, perhaps I may say
without offence, by an anti-Socialist—I refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)? The right hon. Gentleman, speaking some time ago about the Dawes Report, made these remarks:
Agreement would never have been reached without the brusque and brutal intervention of international bankers. They swept statesmen, politicians, jurists and journaists all on one side, and issued their orders with the Imperiousness of absolute monarchs who knew that there was no appeal from their ruthless decrees This settlement is the joint ukase of King Dollar and King Sterling.
This is not the utterance of a Socialist; it is the utterance of an ex-Prime Minister, who deliberately points out that a small band of financiers were able to impose their will upon the most powerful statesmen and politicians. I am not now discussing whether the bankers on that occasion were right or wrong; I dismiss that for the moment; but I assert that no body of men, even though they were angels from Heaven, have the right to hold that absolute power in their hands.
If I have trespassed unduly upon the House to-night, I can only plead that this is my first offence. My second reason for so doing is the importance of the subject. My hon. Friend who moved this Motion made reference to the Prime Minister and to his speech some weeks ago. I want to say, if a back bencher may, that that speech was worthy of the first stateman in this country. I regret that in many quarters it has not been received in the spirit in which it was made. I say for myself, quite frankly, that I hold out the olive branch, but I also say that you cannot have peace on an ill-clad, ill-fed, ill-educated and ill-housed democracy. I represent a constituency in Durham which has, perhaps, produced as much wealth as any other area in this country. That constituency and that district have played as large a part, if not a larger, in the evolution of the commercial system of this country, as any other district. I think I shall be justified in stating that fortunes as great as any in this country have been made in that district. And what is the result? May I ask the House to listen for one minute?
In that constituency, the area of Consett, where wealth has been produced in abundance, the figures given at the Sankey Commission were appalling.
In the district of Anfield Plain 43.6 per cent, of the people were living in overcrowded conditions. In Leadgate they were even worse. The infantile mortality rate was appalling—one in every six or seven children born in my constituency died before reaching the age of one year. At the last General Election I went to canvass in one area, and in one of the houses that I visited, a house of five rooms, I found nine Parliamentary voters, besides women under 30 and children, showing appalling conditions. For five generations the people in my constituency have toiled to produce wealth which has helped to make this country prosperous, and yet to-day they are living under conditions that are a disgrace to Christendom and unworthy of a Christian civilisation. Thousands of these men are coming home after a hard week's work with £2 2s., £2 3s. and £2 4s. to maintain and keep their families. These men and these women are among the best people that God ever created. They are good fathers, good mothers, good husbands, good wives. Six or seven years ago many of these men fought in the War, and were producing nothing; but when they produced nothing they had good suits of clothes, good boots, good food. To-day they are producing and working, yet living on starvation rations. We want peace. Generally I hate strife and conflict between people who ought to co-operate; but you cannot have peace on those terms. Improve our conditions, and we will join hands with you to make the lot of our people better than it is. I close by thanking the House for the courtesy and indulgence that it has extended to me. I do not suppose that this Resolution will be passed tonight, but some day it will. We on these benches will go into the Lobby to-night and vote for this Resolution, because we believe with Ruskin, that there is no limit to the help that man can render to man, because we believe with that great teacher, that government and co-operation are the ways of life, that anarchy and competition are the ways of death.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words,
the well-being of all classes being dependent on the maintenance of the present
economic system, any attempt to undermine it constitutes a grave menace to society; and, whilst recognising the necessity of legislative and other action for easing immediate hardships, this House declares that no real solution of the problem of employment and wages is possible in the near future unless recovery from the trade depression is assisted by the encouragement of enterprise and by the co-operation of all sections of the community in an earnest endeavour to secure and maintain a more satisfactory competitive tooting in world markets.
I should like to preface my remarks by congratulating the Mover of the Resolution on his maiden effort in this House. We all of us realise the difficulty which such an occasion brings to us, and I am sure the House appreciated the genuine feeling of sympathy with those who have the misfortune to be in difficult and hard circumstances to-day, and I claim that we on this side of the House equally realise and sympathise with those difficulties just as much as hon. Members opposite. I realise that these preliminary speeches are a sort of overture to the gladiatorial contest between the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), but perhaps I may be permitted, as the Mover of the Resolution has criticised my Amendment, to criticise his Resolution and to compare it with the Amendment. The first thing that struck me about the Resolution was this. I was very much astonished that the hon. Member should have said that the impoverished condition of the working classes is inherent in the present economic and industrial system. I wonder if he has ever heard of a country called the United States of America. That country is highly industrial and highly capitalised. There is an urgent demand to immigrate into that country. In fact, it is absorbing many of the most skilled workers of this country, and you find that in this most highly capitalised country real wages are higher than they are in any country in the world.
There has been an experiment during the last seven years in Russia. Hon. Members may say the two are not comparable, but I assure them they are. First of all, take the size of the countries. They are both very large and both self-contained. You have this experiment in Russia to-day, and we have some experience of its results. We find
that Russia and the United States are similarly rich in natural resources. They are comparable as to population also. Let us compare the effects of this experiment. We find that in Russia to-day the population is declining. The average wages throughout industry are 58 per cent. of pre-War, whereas the cost of living is at the point of 177. I am quoting those figures from the report which was made by members of the trade union joy-riders who went to Russia. It is assumed that a man or woman working for the State will produce more than if working for individual firms, but according to this report productivity was not more than 60 per cent of pre-War. Then there is something which will appeal, I am sure, to the hon. Member who just interrupted me. I should like to refer him, if he has not seen it, to the "International Labour Information" which was published on 15th March, and he will find that pages 10, 11 and 12 especially deal with Russia. When you have nationalisation of industries, as you have in that country, apparently it is not considered necessary to pay wages, or, if you pay wages, you pay them considerably in arrear. I wish hon. Members opposite would read the effects of this disastrous experiment in nationalisation. I will read one or two sentences from this report, because I think they are worthy of note and should be recognised by the country as a whole. It says on page 11:
The disastrous consequences of this situation are being more and more keenly felt. Production is suffering. The workers are not interested in production and, in order to make both ends meet frequently absent themselves for several days to work in private industry. In the metal industry and the coal mines, one-third of the working days lost are lost for this reason. The often defective quality of the goods manufactured and the high percentage of throw-outs are directly related to irregularities in the payment of wages.
I should like to mention the sugar industry.
In October, 1924, the State Sugar Trust owned 5,300,000 roubles to its workers, which is equivalent to 35.8 roubles per worker, which is almost the average monthly wage in industry.
I should hardly think hon. Members opposite, although they may appeal to the sentiment of the House and appeal strongly, when they are up against the practical facts of an experiment which has been in existence for seven years—

Mr. BROMLEY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House how much of the seven years they have had peace to develop?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: In conditions such as they have today, with no secret ballot and no freedom of the Press, they are never likely to have it. That was the first sentence that interested me in the Resolution before the House. The second one I wish to deal with is that the hon. Member welcomes both legislative action and industrial agreements that ease immediate hardship. I am sure in his heart he thoroughly believes in that, but I wonder whether all the followers of right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to see industrial peace. I know the difficulties of a Labour leader. There are always a great many people who want their jobs, and the position is not a bed of roses. While one may recognise that men may be wild at the street corner, the fact is they come here cooing like doves, compared with the sanguinary language they use at street corners. It makes one wonder whether it is true that there is a great number of the followers of the right hon. Gentleman opposite mho desire to see peace in industry. I do not think they do. I believe they wish to upset the present state of affairs. [interruption.] I think I can confirm that by what Mr. Cook, the Secretary of the Miners' Federation said. He said:
There must be drastic changes, but not in the direction of longer hours. We are going to get a living wage—by reason, if possible; by force, if necessary. When we act it will not, I hope, be alone.
Then there was a warning from the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), whose illness we all deplore. He appears not to be proud of the wild men in his own movement, and he wrote recently:
A determined effort is being made to induce all these bodies to join together in a general strike which will hold up the community. … Such a strike as that would inflict incalculable harm on British industry, and would put back for a long time any revival of trade. That would just suit the Communists' policy.
And it is perfectly true. I wish there was a definite feeling behind hon. Members opposite for peace. I think this affords a very good opportunity to have some explanation about the distinguished
visitors whose pictures we saw in the papers this morning. I confess that they did not inspire me with confidence by the look of them, but when you get into close contact with them, possibly they may be different. But what I want to know is why, at a time when there is great economical difficulty in Russia, they want to join with the trade unionists in this country to find some way out? Are they here for the improvement of the conditions of this country and their own country? [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I hope hon. Members will allow the hon. and gallant Member to proceed.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: This is a very small subject, and I do not want to rub it in too much. I am looking forward to some answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to what benefit this country and the industries of this country are going to get from the conferences at the headquarters of the trade unions in this country. In the third sentence which I wish to deal with he says that no permanent solution of the problem is possible apart from social ownership and democratic control of the staple industries by nationalisation. Possibly hon. Gentlemen opposite will say: "We are not going to put all these things under Government; we are going to have something analagous to the Port of London Authority." But when you are dealing with coals, sugar, oil and rubber, we know perfectly well that on any question of any importance brought up in this House the Minister in charge will be questioned, and that in the case of mines, anything like sinking a new pit or closing an old one, or on a question of expenditure, the question would be immediately put to the Minister, and that would not make for rapidity of business.
But there is another aspect of the question I should like the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) to recognise, that is the effect of nationalised industry on international relations. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last is, I believe, a whole-hearted supporter of peace. What effect is the nationalisation of industry going to have in that direction? Take the case of coals. He knows very well the opinion of the men in his division and he knows how well they did in the boom years. All that money had to be
paid over into the pockets of France and Italy owing to the shortage of coal in those countries. Even when the pits belonged to private companies there was still great ill-feeling between the French and Italians against ourselves; but if the Government put up the price of coal what would their feelings be? Let me take another commodity. There is nothing more fruitful of international jealousy than disputes about oil. Supposing the distribution of oil in this country was in the hands of the Government, or suppose that the control of the rubber industry was in the hands of the Government. Now rubber is practically the only article that cannot be produced in the United States. A year ago you had the rubber output restricted owing to over-production. What would happen if the Government of this country restricted production and there was a shortage of supplies of rubber in the United States? Surely it must be apparent to every hon. Gentleman in this House that if you have nationalised industries there would be a most fruitful source of international dispute when you are dealing with such matters as coal, oil and rubber.
I should like to say a few words in regard to the conditions under which we live to-day. I recognise, and all Conservatives recognise, that inequality exists. It exists in the brains of every Member of this House. Thank goodness, there is inequality. But I just want to say that I think the Conservative party would welcome a meeting with Labour on these questions where difficulties arise. I am quite certain of that. We realise that the whole employment of this country depends upon securing the necessary capital in order to keep industries going. We realise that capital has been built up during generations and that a great deal of capital is getting no reward. We realise also that a good deal of capital is being lost. On the other hand, we recognise that there are companies, owing to monopolies and other reasons, getting a bigger return than they are giving to the community. Take the Anglo-American Tobacco Company and the subsidiary companies. Year after year we have seen that huge dividends are being paid on watered capital. We realise that there is such a thing as reducing the return on capital after a period of years, provided
that nothing was done to discourage thrift, enterprise or industry. I would go into the question of holding companies, which are a source of very great suspicion. These are questions which we can discuss, and in regard to which we can come together. The wild experiments which have been made in Russia are not going to benefit the world. The one thing that we have to appreciate is that it is absolutely essential that capital should increase pro tanto with the increase of population in this country. If it was not for the increase in capital it would be impossible to keep a large number of workers in this country employed, or even fed.
I am inclined to look upon the world at this moment as a very gigantic ant heap. It has been built up by a great deal of work, a great deal of steady labour, done by generations, and as a result we have to-day that complicated mechanism which we call a civilised nation. There are dangers threatening. This mechanism is threatened by such proposals as come from hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members come like a great ant-eater, and they may destroy in one moment this extraordinary mechanism which it has taken generations to build up. What happens then? When once this thing is destroyed, you will have to start again from the beginning. You will have to build up piece by piece, generation by generation, until we get nearly to the level at which we stand to-day. It would not be the first time that civilisation has been destroyed. We have read of civilisations in centuries gone by which have been destroyed. We are not going to benefit the workers by any drastic experiments of that kind. The only thing that will help us through is a spirit of understanding, good feeling, and cooperation between man and man. We must work together in the situation in which we live to-day, and it is in that spirit that I move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Major OLIVER STANLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is an Amendment which, I hope, will commend itself particularly to the hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on the Opposition side, whose numbers to-night have suffered a temporary reduction. The tinge of Socialism about this Resolution must be peculiarly repugnant to hon. Members opposite who have shown
themselves so fiercely individualist. Is it not a fact that they have among their reputed leaders the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), whom one might call the high priest of individualism. One is entitled to hope that this evening hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will not strain the quality of the Liberalism which their mouths utter, by allowing their feet to take them into the Lobby in favour of a Socialistic Motion. However, "Paullo majora canamus." Let me turn to the numerically more important section of the Opposition. This Motion, to use the words of my hon. and gallant Friend, is more in the nature of a mild and indeterminate quid than the Socialism one might expect. It reminds one of a fact which we ought not to forget, that the name of Socialism covers a multitude of aims; that beneath the banner of Socialism are ranked men of extraordinarily diverse opinion, ranging from the pure intellectual, with the blood of 100 Blue Books in his veins, to the man who comes under the glamour of the speeches of the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), and under the persuasion of that eloquence confuses Socialism with social service. It is not for me to say in which category comes the Socialism of the hon. Member who has moved this Motion.
I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House will, at least, be glad to see that he has avoided one of the first fallacies into which so many of his Socialist friends fall. He has, at least, recognised that, whether under Socialism or under capitalism, industry, the intricate, organised mechanism of industry, must still go on, and that he who tries to maim the mechanism is doing an ill-service to the cause of the Socialism which he supports. There are Socialists, Members of this House, and there is even, I believe, a right hon. Gentleman, who are out, as they call it, to smash capitalism. The House would like to know how it is possible to smash capitalism without at the same time smashing the industrial machine which capitalism has built up. The House also would like to know what is the opinion of those of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues who, presumably, will have to sweep up the mess.
The hon. Member who moved the Motion and the hon. Member who seconded it made long and interesting
speeches. They put before the House a quantity of figures about which there is no dispute, which showed the very grave state of the country at the moment. They threw out ideas and desires with which all of us, on all sides of the House, must concur; but they omitted something, and it was an omission of extraordinary importance. They attempted to say nothing as to how Socialism is going to remedy these evils and how Socialism is going to bring about the desires which they mentioned. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) appealed for a calm, intellectual consideration of this problem, but if hon. Members consider it from that aspect, what we have to consider about Socialism is whether it can stand or fall on its own economic legs.
The first question is, can the supporters of Socialism offer a direct profit to the State? That is to say, that under Socialism the State will be putting into the Treasury an excess of revenue over expenditure, which before went into the pockets of capitalists, or can they show that by some new method which they advocate, some new incentive to the worker, some new opening for markets, the State is going to make profits larger than was made before by the capitalists, and, therefore, will be able to put that surplus into the Treasury? With regard to the first point, it is obviously impossible for the State to make any profit if it takes over from the capitalists the value of their assets at the market value. The only way in which the State can make a direct profit is if there is confiscation or partial confiscation of capitalist assets.
I believe that even members of the Independent Labour Party have come to recognise the folly of confiscation. They recognise first of all the injustice of picking on a particular set of men who happen to have invested their savings in a particular industry and saying to them and not to others "We are going to confiscate what you possess." You might just as well confiscate all the property of men whose names begin with a "W." I pass to the second part of the problem which is more difficult: whether under Socialism you can gain for the State any indirect profit out of which the State is able to increase the wages or improve the position of the working classes or else to
reduce the price to the community of the articles produced. I do not want to quote examples of history, because the only use that most of us have for the lessons of history is to disregard them. I do not want to give any elaborate set of figures as to State trading in Australia or State enterprise in America, because I understand that hon. Members opposite place their reliance on figures which are capable of being used on both sides. I believe, as a demonstration of that, that certain Members by a careful analysis of the figures at the last General Election have proved conclusively that the Conservatives suffered a severe defeat, but there is only one general observation which I would like to make with regard to the question of Russia.
After the Bolshevik Revolution, as all hon. Members of this House know, industry in Russia was re-established on a completely communistic basis. The whole means of production were in the hands of the State. About four years ago an alteration was made, and private industry was let in again. It was let in on very restricted terms and in conditions of the greatest difficulty, and now, after three years of that, we find a reaction in Russia, and we find the Bolshevists trying to get away from the new economic policy and to go back to the old one. To my mind, this sudden reaction is, and can only be, due to this fact that, with all these conditions of difficulties, private industry in Russia was beating the State out of the field.
Taking the conditions with regard to Socialism first of all, how under State control can we expect any difference in management which is going to allow us to produce our goods more economically and therefore give us this surplus? In my submission you can not. After all, the management of industry is a highly technical business, a business to which men have to be trained throughout their lives. It is ridiculous to suppose that, if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues came into power to-morrow with a majority to place the industries of this country under Socialism, they would have any reserve of competent power to draw on to take over the management of industry. Under Socialism the industry would continue in the hands of the same personnel
as it is in at present, but with one very great difference. Whereas now under the capitalist system the livelihood of the man depends on success, under Socialism his job would depend only on the avoidance of failure.
The second question is this. Can you expect under State control that there will be any additional incentive to work to increase your production? Again, I believe not. There is nothing in modern conditions of mechanicalised industry which is going to make the worker produce more because he works for the State than because he works for private industry. It was different in the days of ancient Greece, when work was individual and artistic. A man could take a pride and pleasure in his work. How can we believe now, when a man will work in the same place, in the same conditions, at the same machine, doing exactly the same process, that it will make any difference at all to his powers of production whether he works under State control or private enterprise. Perhaps hon. Members opposite will allow me to read one passage in this connection from the evidence given before the Sankey Commission by a man of very great ability, who hon. Members opposite are aware is not in the least biased against the cause of Socialism. I refer to Mr. G. D. H. Cole. He said:
National management by itself will not secure the full co-operation of the workers.
Then he goes on to say:
State management will only mean management by a State Department. The workers under such management are no more free, so far as the conditions of the workers welfare are concerned, than the workers under capitalist management.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that hon. Members dissent from the expression in the Resolution "social ownership," which can only mean ownership by society, that is the State. The last question is: What is going to happen to our industries in the markets which are now closed? That is the gravest problem of the moment. It is not a question of excessive profits of the capitalist, or excessive wages for the workers. It is not even a question of the fierceness of foreign competition. It is that in a great many of our staple industries markets are closed, not only to us, but to our competitors also. They are markets which have dis-
appeared. Take the coal industry. In the case of ships coal has been supplanted by oil. In the factories it has been supplanted largely by electric power. One asks oneself with regard to State control whether the right hon. Member for Aberavon, by a wave of his magic wand, is going to reopen these matters or is that festal gentleman who, we are told, the other day performed with success the lugubrious task of providing the right hon. Gentleman with two Scottish jokes a day also going to provide him with an open sesame at which these caves of hidden diamonds will fly open?
If all these questions are answered in the negative, if Socialism cannot effect any economies in management and cannot provide any incentive to work to increase production, and cannot open these markets which are now closed, what is the result going to be? It is possible that Socialism for a few years would perhaps give the worker higher wages and perhaps produce the illusion of greater prosperity, but if so it is going to do it not out of an annual income but of your national capital. You may do it for a year or two, you may gain a few votes, you may have a few years of power, but it is a method which can only lead to disaster in the end and you will find that, if that course is pursued, the very man you set out to help will find that his last state will be worse than his first.
I have already detained the House too long, but I want, if I may, in a few minutes to do what I ought to have done before, and that is to put our case. I am afraid I have put the cart before the horse—the very ramshackle broken-clown Socialist cart before the individualist horse which, although a little off colour at the moment, yet with careful tending and nursing will be able to perform its duties. We on these benches cannot agree that the destitute and impoverished condition of the working classes is inherent in the present economic system. We do not believe that to be so. We believe that before the War the capitalist system was working well, that we were progressing towards better conditions for everyone. Then the War came, and the machinery was upset, and it is no good pretending that the situation at the moment is not
very grave. But the very fact that the situation is so grave means that we cannot afford the luxury of these Socialistic experiments. We believe that by means of Conservatism we can restore the State which Socialism would destroy. The principle of Conservatism is not what it is represented to be, simply keeping what you have got, any more than the policy of those opposite is what it is often alleged to be, grabbing what you have not. We have our philosophy to put against the philosophy of Socialism. It is based on the very real educational value of the ownership of property by the individual—an educational value which I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Aberavon gave expression to the other day.
Obviously, if this is to have effect in the country, ownership of property must be as widespread as possible. It is our hope that by schemes of co-partnership, which will result in a condition where every worker is a capitalist to some extent and every capitalist is a worker in some condition or other, by schemes of small holdings, which will result in as many men as possible, within economic limits, going back to the land—we hope that we shall arrive, at any rate, at the goal of a property-owning democracy. That goal will need sacrifice, but I believe that what is called the capitalist class is prepared to make that sacrifice if it can see clearly that it is going to be to the good of the country. What they are not prepared to do is to give in without a struggle to compulsion whose only object is to take away their property and to throw it, with one of the right hon. Gentleman's well-known gestures, down the bottomless pit of Socialism. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but I believe that if the time ever comes when the Prime Minister has to do what he promised to do, and that is, to cut through vested interests in order to improve the conditions of the people, the obstacle he will find in his way will not be the capitalist mote, but the very large and solid beam in the eyes of hon. Members opposite.

10.0 P.M.

Sir ALFRED MOND: It is with some reluctance that I take part in this discussion, for I understood that it had been staged for the benefit of Back Benchers
against the Front Bench of the Labour party, and that those of us who belong to other parties were not supposed to take any interest in the matter. There has been, one has noticed, in recent times a somewhat serious backsliding in the earnest advocacy of Socialism among many of those who are influential in the fortunes of the Labour party. It was, therefore, thought to be about time to stage one of these very academic Debates, which have not advanced our knowledge either of Socialism or of any other problem in any one discussion we have had, in order to drive the Front Bench back into the fold. Really I feel reluctant to go on discussing the extraordinarily academic and bootless type of proposition which we had two years ago in this House, and which is repeated to-night. These discussions remind one of the twistings and turnings of a squirrel in a cage. You get up and point out what is the evil spot in the present system. You then quite illogically and suddenly announce that Socialism will cure it all. You never tell anyone what Socialism is, how it is to work, how you intend to proceed, what steps you propose to take. I remember very well that when I was a young man of 19 I carried on a similar discussion with a very eminent member of the Fabian Society Debating Club. In all the years since the gentlemen who have been advocating Socialistic policy have not gone forward; they have gone back. I venture to say that Fabian Socialism in the days of the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), Mr. Bernard Shaw, Mr. Hubert Bland, and men of that type, was more productive of ideas. They did endeavour to sketch out a state of society that they intended to produce. That has all been scrapped and abandoned.
I noticed, with great entertainment and not much surprise, the jeers which the idea of the State running industry was greeted on the Labour Benches. The hon. Gentleman, who spoke last, apparently, did not realise that State Socialism has been declared dead and out of date by a very large section of the Socialist party. They have advanced to what they call Guild Socialism. What Guild Socialism is, is equally obscure. We have had the Miners' Federation Nationalisation Bill. That Bill meant
that the community finds the money and that the miners run the industry and take the profits. After all, that is not Socialism of any kind or form. It is merely transferring the entire profits of the community to the people who work in the collieries. Do hon. Gentlemen really imagine that any section of the British people are ever going into such a foolish proposition as that? I would ask them a simple question. The State now owns the Post Office. Are the surplus profits of the Post Office divided up amongst the postmen? Do the miners imagine that the community is going to allow them to have a gamble with their money, if there are any profits, which are very much doubt. Of course, their Socialism leads them nowhere, and is an abrogation of the moral principles which the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) is never tired of laying down, that the whole idea of Socialism is not to get money but to do service; it is not that you are to have the surplus profits but that you are to turn out more coal for less money.
I am not in the least surprised when Mr. Cook, during the Election, expressed his amazement at the definition of Socialism given by the right hon. Member for Aberavon, and said that if that were Socialism, he was not a Socialist, as it was opposed to everything he had been trying to do all his life. There is a strong trade union movement in the Labour party, I understand, to protect their interests against the Socialist members of the party. These questions, I have no doubt, in time they will solve among themselves. Very much the same kind of conferences are taking place now, I believe, in certain sections of their Russian colleagues; but until they have settled some of these differences among themselves, I do not see why they should keep on maintaining that they are making rapid progress. As it is, revolution is going backwards like the crab. I remember the happy days when a Resolution for the immediate nationalisation of all means of production, exchange and distribution was passed by Trade Union Congresses year after year. I do not believe they ever paid much attention to it, but it was passed.
Look what is happening now. We had a Resolution in this House two years ago moved by my right hon. Friend the
Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). He, at any rate, was more universal than we are to-night. To-night, the red wine of Socialism has been watered down. The Red Flag has had a coat of whitewash put on it. We are now gradually, by progressive steps, said to be approaching some future day, when all the present unemployed are dead, and all people who live in bad houses have died of disease—[An HON. MEMBER: "And when the Jews have gone back!"]—when all that has happened, we will have merely Socialised, in some form unknown, some stable industries, and some genius has discovered the Bank of England. I expected to hear where those stable industries were. We have not heard one syllable about them. The only thing we have heard any serious attempt to discuss was the question of the nationalisation of banking. I listened to that part of the very eloquent speech of the hon. Gentleman who dealt with it, with a good deal of interest. He pointed out, I think with some force, that, undoubtedly, it might be a danger to a community if a money trust obtained control of national credit. I think other people have been occupying their minds with that problem. I think if the danger ever became imminent, the State, in the interests of the community, might be bound to intervene. There is nobody to-day lays down the doctrine that any part of the community has the right to impose on the rest of the community. If Socialists merely wished to remedy nuisances instead of interfering with everybody's business whether a nuisance or not, that is another matter. As soon as society wished to interfere with your dinner, with where you go in the evening, or whether you smoke a pipe, and your other domestic habits, there would be a revolt in this country. But that is what the Socialists want to do with industry. That is what their programme comes to.
Let us examine the question of banking. We have seen some instances of the danger of a National. Bank being dependent on political exigencies. There is no doubt that a great part of the collapse of German currency was due to the fact that they had a State bank. There is no doubt whatever, that if the Reichsbank had been an independent institution, under independent management, it would have been able to retain a sound
financial position in Germany. The Socialist Government of Germany went on with inflation, which meant, of course, repudiation of their debt, but I do not think the German working classes are benefitting from it to-day. They are in a much similar position to-day in France. I do not want to intervene in a discussion that is taking place in another country on finance, but I cannot imagine the Bank of France, if it had been entirely independent of the Government, would not have adopted some different policy than is being adopted by the Government there. The reason is surely obvious. When you mix up this question of the existence of a Government, their popularity with the electors, with the hard question of whether you ought or ought not to deflate, and whether you ought or ought not to raise the Bank rate, you are mixing up two things you ought not to mix up. If hon. Members like to look it up, they will find that this matter was fully discussed at the time the Bank of England obtained its charter, when the question was raised as to whether or not it should be a State bank, and they very wisely decided, I think, not to make it a State bank. What claim to financial stability we have in this country is, I think, very largely due to the fact that it remains a private institution. Therefore, when these proposals are thrown out, they require a much more careful analysis.
We have always worked on the confidence of foreign nations. That is to say, there have always been large foreign balances held by the Bank of England, because it was looked upon as a stable institution. These large foreign balances meant credit to this country and enabled us to have a lower Bank rate than would otherwise have been the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is very much upset about the rise in the Bank rate, and he is going up and down the country pointing out how it makes dearer the building of houses. I assure him that if the Bank of England were a State bank under a Socialist Government the foreign balances and a good many other people's balances would very quickly disappear. The Bank rate would undoubtedly go up, and if he was still paying for the building of houses, as I presume he would be, those houses would cost more to the Socialist State than they are costing the indi-
vidualist and capitalist State which is operating at present. There is no golden wand such as hon. Members above the Gangway try to produce. As a matter of fact, the golden wand has been repudiated by the leader of their party in a recent speech. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), in a speech which he made recently—a very fair speech, as his speeches usually are, and also a cautious speech—admitted, frankly enough, that if he were in power again—a contingency which I think is remote—and had a Labour majority as large as the present Conservative majority, he could not do what some hon. Members seem to expect. He said:
If a Socialist Government were in power to-morrow with a majority of a couple of hundred like the present Tory Government—even then that Government would not be able to wave a wand and bring them into Socialism. They had to go another way about it.
[HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"] Do hon. Members tell their electors that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Did the two Gentlemen who spoke so ably to-night indicate that even in the happy position mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the unemployed would remain unemployed, housing conditions would remain bad, and wages would remain low? [HON. MEMBERS: They would not."] If hon. Members allow me to deal with this argument, I will do so, but they must allow me to work it out slowly. The argument we have heard to-night is that all our woes come from a blight which is called the capitalist system, and that it can only be cured by Socialism. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of that party says that if had a majority he could not institute Socialism—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not in five minutes."]—no, nor in as many years. I will read his words again. He says he could not
wave a wand and bring them into Socialism. They would have to go steadily, certainly and without pause forming men's minds, habits and outlook.
I do not know how long that will take, but all the time that is taking place your condition would remain what it is. As I said before, the present generation of unemployed will remain unemployed and housing and other conditions will remain very much as they are. This entire discussion relates to something
which is to happen when we are all dead—even according to hon. Members themselves—at such a remote and distant date that it has no practical application to the situation to-day. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are, I believe, perfectly sincere in wishing for improved conditions, and I hope they will be kind enough to allow us credit for some sincerity also. Therefore would it not be more practical and useful if we, as Members of this House, were to concentrate on practical and immediate measures for improving the situation? It is curious to find that from this Resolution the very important question of land has been dropped out. One hon. Member did refer to the question of land values. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon had it in his power to deal with the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You had a chance, and you would have received support on that question, I have no doubt—I was not here then—from quite a large body of the Liberal party in order to have carried it, but, as a matter of fact, you never tried. You tried to lend money to the Russians.
The land question lies fundamentally at the root of our economic evils, and you will have to deal with it on fairly advanced lines if you are ever going to effect any redistribution of the wealth produced by our industrial system. It is useless to imagine that by a mere redistribution of existing wealth you could very largely improve the conditions existing to-day. You must really increase the total amount of wealth as well as redistribute it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] The hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Windsor) did not understand why somebody smiled when he suggested that if only the community managed certain industries that paid low wages the community would manage them better. What does he mean by the community? What is the community? After all, it is the same people existing to-day, and why should you assume that they would manage an industry better? That is one of the curious ideas of hon. Members above the Gangway. I remember my right hon. Friend, in a debate we had at Cambridge, was always complaining about the faults of our present system, and he represented the private capitalist as an equal mixture of incompetence and greed, but where
are the more competent people? If you take those same people and put them in a room in a Government office, and call them a Government committee, will they be any more competent than they are to-day? They are exactly the same people, and they would not be any more competent, and my experience is that they would be a little less competent.
That is exactly one of the complaints which I always feel when you talk about democratic control. What do you mean by democratic control? It means absolutely nothing. If you take a limited liability company, a big railway company, that has 300,000 shareholders, and if you hand it over to the State, you create so many million shareholders; that is all you do. How is the control going to be exercised in a more democratic fashion? Is it going to be managed by committees? By committees of whom, and how? As a matter of fact, if it is going to be managed, it will be managed by as few people as it is being managed by to-day. After all, there is no democratic control in trade unions. They are autocratic. The people concerned have an idea that they have some sort of control, but the leaders know perfectly well that they have not. What is the use of talking about democratic control? These resolutions mean nothing at all. If you say that the people who are engaged in a specific industry should by means of workmen's councils and joint management councils, or councils of the kind, have a greater voice in regard to the conditions under which they work, I think there is a great deal to be said for that course. But that is autocracy, that is not democratic control. Democratic control is control by the entire people. It really means control by some people, and probably not a large number by any manner of means, a control perhaps analogous to that exercised by the present system of shareholders. Some companies, it may be said, have many more shareholders than they have workmen. These are all questions capable of discussion, capable of judgment, and while you may have to wait till the Greek Kalends for some of the things suggested, you can get to a discussion of these other problems almost immediately. You will find, as a matter of fact, that a great many of them may be discussed seriously and in a friendly way.
I quite realise that we have had two
generations of workmen who have passed through an important system of education, which is certainly a very good thing. We are very well aware that these people take an intelligent view and a different view of industry to the people of years ago. This need not be a matter of controversy. These people naturally feel that they do not particularly like the position of those who at the end of the week go to receive their wages without any knowledge of their industry, without any explanation of the why or wherefore, or without any opportunity of making their influence felt in any particular capacity in the industry itself. A great many of them are shareholders—more I hope are becoming shareholders every day. But I am not merely talking of shareholders here, but of dealing with the capacity of people interested in their industry and wishful to see legitimate improvement. The Whitley Councils were a step in the right direction. They have done very good work. Councils such as these do a good work, and help to avoid a great deal of unnecessary friction. In these matters of control by workmen let hon. Members note what has been taking place in the North of England where the co-operative societies and various unions have been in dispute, and a strike is taking place, the unions say to prevent those who are employed by the co-operative societies being sweated. Again, take the Miners' Bill. Under that the miners cannot be trusted not to strike. The officials who represented the collieries would not even accept arbitration. But I do not wish to score a point on that. There is no doubt that in our organisation these things are being developed and are developing, and I really do not think that seriously there is any controversy at all on some of the aspects of this question. Right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway have great knowledge of this subject, and ideas on it. They have experience, too. But I would suggest to them that they are spending their time, and it is not wise to do so in following a Will-o'-the-Wisp. Some hundreds of thousands of years ago saw the beginning of civilisation. There is only one place in the civilised world where you have a Socialist State, that is in Russia, and it is there rapidly coming to an end. Hon. Members on the Labour benches think they have the only wisdom in the world, but how is it the great democracies of America, France,
and other countries, in the present or in the past, have never adopted this golden panacea? There must be some reason for it, some explanation for it. The human race is not so stupid that if it thought it could solve all its difficulties in this way, it would not have solved them long ago. The obvious answer is that the thing will not work. We need not really controvert Socialism, because Socialism is dead. Since the days of Karl Marx, somewhere about 1835 or a little later—he was the father and the inventor of the idea—there has been no cause which is more discredited, which has made less progress, and which has met with such universal non-acceptance in the whole civilised world, as the doctrine of Socialism. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Hon. Members must not confuse social reform with Socialism; they must not confuse the effect of evolution in ideas as to the right of the State and of the individual. There are no boundaries to that. When I was a young man, Herbert Spencer's "Man versus The State" was the great gospel of many. He objected to the use of a common sewer, he objected to any common utility. We have passed from that stage, and we shall go on passing from stage to stage.
I would not lay down, no sensible person would lay down, a definite limit of what the community ought to do for itself or ought not to do. But that does not concern Socialism or Marxism. Those are questions of expediency, questions of organisation. If you can prove to us that anything you want to do in any of the staple industries will bring about an improvement, we will examine it, we will go into it, we will be ready to consider it; but it is no use carrying on these general denunciations or these general appreciations of either one policy or another. You will not succeed in converting those who oppose the idea of the abolition of private enterprise or private initiative, what we consider the inherent right of the individual to develop himself to the best of his ability, with the greatest liberty. That is why we say Socialism is opposed to liberty; because under it nobody could start an industry in this country, nobody could start a shop, nobody could start any enterprise, nobody could start an idea.
That is what every Socialist State finally involves. That is why we are passionately opposed to Socialism—in the interests of humanity, in the interests of the development of the human race, and in the interests of liberty, for which our party has always stood.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to bring the mind of the House back to the subject of the Motion my hon. Friend has submitted. I am going to submit to the House that the present condition of the country does not make the question of dealing with this difficulty a fit subject for jocularity, and that a Motion such as this is entitled to the most serious consideration of every Member of every party. The question has been asked, and emphasised, How would Socialism work? The subject to which we want to direct attention is the present difficulty of making capitalism work. If capitalism were working successfully there would be no need for this Motion and no justification for this discussion. May I briefly summarise the criticism of the present condition of things made by the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion?
In the year 1923–24 there were 20,000,000 persons in this country occupied for gain, and out of that total only 4,750,000, or about one in five, had an income that reached the standard of the Income Tax; and after making the usual abatement for Income Tax purposes the number of persons who were chargeable by tax was only 2,500,000. It is not surprising therefore that my hon. Friends have been able to point out that in an order of society where 17,500,000 out of 20,000,000 workers are continually travelling along the verge of destitution that a large number should frequently topple over and get into the pit of destitution. On the 27th December last year 1,070,000 persons in England and Wales were in receipt of Poor Law relief, and a further 245,000 people were in the same unfortunate position in Scotland.
Notwithstanding these facts, ours is a rich and prosperous country for some people, because according to the Income Tax and Super-tax returns 85,000 people divided £495,000,000 amongst them an average income of £5,800 each, and 192 persons succeeded in obtaining £100,000 each. When we quote figures like this we are told by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that if all the surplus
wealth that is now taken by this small number of people was distributed over the whole community, it would not add more than a few shillings per week to the income of the average artisan. Our criticism of the present system does not rest so much on that bad distribution at all, but our criticism is that it has now reached the stage where it restricts the production of wealth in a developed country like ours. I want to point out that the output of goods in this or any similar country must be determined by the purchasing power of the customers for whom it produces. You may go on talking about exports and imports, but when you get down to rock bottom, not only is your output of goods determined by the quantity you can sell, but your imports and exports are determined by the purchasing power of your own people.
The criticism was made very eloquently by the Seconder of this Resolution that, while the Capitalist order of society had succeeded remarkably in increasing production, it broke down as the means of distributing the goods that it produced. In other words, the wages of the people, which are the purchasing power of the people, do not keep pace with the people's power of production.
I hear people discussing the present order and our immediate difficulties as though the working class could be regarded as only producers. I want to remind the House that the working class are three-fourths of your consumers, three-fourths of your customers; and, when the working class are poor, your customers are poor and powerless. If your industries have to be kept going at a rate that will provide an outlet for your goods equal to your output, then your working class must have an ever-increasing purchasing power to keep pace with the increased rate of production. At the present moment there is no shortage of anything that the people require in this country, with the single exception of houses. The best evidence of that is to be found in the fact that on neither side of the House has anyone suggested, as a remedy for unemployment, that you ought to erect additional factories and set people to produce boots, clothes, furniture and other things that the poor require; because, immediately that was suggested, the idea would flash to the mind that we have more of these
things at the moment than we can sell, and that it would be a further embarrassment with riches if we proceeded to produce more.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who, strange to say, was relied upon by the Government as its defender this evening, is fond of telling us that we can all unite in deploring these conditions, but that it is not necessary to destroy capitalism in order to remove these evils. In regard to this state of affairs, this condition of things in which people are starving and unemployed in the midst of plenty—people who are prepared to produce more goods for you if you can distribute the goods which they have already produced, or which have been imported in return for what they have produced—these people are compelled at present to starve, and we are told that we can remove all these difficulties without removing capitalism. Our case is that that cannot be done. I put it to hon. Members opposite that within the competitive system an employer of labour, unless he has an absolute monopoly, is not a free man in fixing the wages in his workshop. The wages in his workshop, within a competitive system, are determined, all other things being equal, by the wages in the workshop of the employer who pays the lowest, rate of wages. If the virtuous employer proceeded to distribute purchasing power at the rate he believed to be necessary, without any regard to what was being paid by his rival in the same business, he would find himself driven to reduce the wages or forced into the Bankruptcy Court. If that is so, that within the competitive system the good man is not a free man in the fixing of wages and of the power to purchase goods if it is a fact, as is suggested, that within this system the sinner controls the saint, we are putting it to you that if your problem is a greater distribution of purchasing power among your people in order to enable them to buy more goods, and within the competitive system you cannot have the greater distribution of purchasing power, your system stands condemned.
May I labour this point further. May I sum it up in this way—that not merely in our country, but in every part of the world at the moment, you have more sellers than buyers. That is the very
centre of the problem, that in every advanced country we have more goods than we can sell, and our problem is how to face a situation like that. If the capitalist system of society cannot distribute goods as rapidly as it can produce them, if this failure to distribute goods keeps our people unemployed or underemployed, surely I have proved my charge against it that to that extent it restricts the production of wealth. I could go further if I had time, and show you that immediately a monopoly grows in any industry that monopoly, owned and controlled for private profit, proceeds immediately to restrict production in the interest of its private profit. Within the past couple of days you had a pamphlet sent you by Sir Charles Macara in which he points out, with very serious lamentations, that the voluntary restriction of output in the cotton industry of the country has broken down, and he appeals for compulsory restriction of production. I could take you over industrial organisations which exist to-day, such as the National Light Castings Association and other industries, which organise Ca' canny in a wholesale manner that our poor bricklayers are not capable of contemplating. I submit that we are face to face with a very serious national situation, because this state of affairs exists not merely internally, but it exists beyond the seas as well, and your capitalist order of society has made us dependent on foreign products for our means of life. Your capitalist order of society has destroyed the agriculture of the country in order to provide cheap labour for its mines and workshops and factories, and by destroying agriculture they have made this land of ours dependent on foreigners for their food stuffs.
Being dependent on foreigners for cur food and being compelled to import and export, we have now to get down to this thing quite seriously. It is not an academic discussion.
It is the most serious subject that Britain could be considering at the moment. I would like to see more conferences being held—international conferences—on the industrial situation of Europe and how to bring the purchasing power of Europe into relation with the productive capacity of Europe. The
question we are dealing with now is of more immediate and urgent importance than the question of the wars of the future. Whether we want Socialism or Capitalism from the point of view of the nation and not from the point of view of a party, at the moment we are compelled to fight in the international markets of the world. The Government side of the House, instead of turning its attention to the question of how to widen the markets, improve our home markets, and encourage a greater purchasing power among the people, accept the present limited diminishing markets as the last word in commercial and industrial organisation. They ask us to accept that. That is their last word in industrial organisation when they ask us to reduce the cost of production and enter into competition with other nations for this limited and diminishing market. I put it, that is a game at which two can play. If we are going along that course, we are going down to the economic level of the poorest efficient competitor that we have to meet in the industrial and commercial markets. That is the course you want us to pursue.
I want to put this question. Having to fight in the markets of the world, are we in the position to fight? I remember in 1915, when we had to deal with the question of rents, a wise man came along and said, "You cannot afford to carry on two wars at the present time. You are bound to fail if you attempt it. Therefore we ask you to come to terms in regard to home affairs in order that we may unite in saving ourselves from the conflict with other nations of the earth." I submit that the capitalist system has converted our country into an economic battlefield, with the interests of one industry against another industry, with group against group and class against class. Reference has been made to the unemployed and the dole. Your million and a quarter of unemployed are merely the wounded in the industrial fight, and your Employment Exchanges and dole are the hospital and hospital treatment for the people who have gone down in the struggle. Reference has also been made to the devastated areas—the districts which have suffered most. What is our plan? Our plan is that you should stop the economic civil war and act so that as a nation we should sink or swim together. Trade, in my opinion, is not
merely a right matter for the Government, but it should be, in my opinion, the first concern of a Government. Reference has been made to the bankers. We know how they have attacked industry. Scarcely a day passes that I do not hear from a builder that he has entered into a contract to build houses in a period of 12 or 18 months, and he has to depend on high per cent. advances from the bankers. After making a contract, the price of money goes up and that strikes the very feet from under our calculations. I hear of cases where people in order to encourage trade here entered into contracts with Germany, and gave them goods on three months credit on a 4½ per cent, basis, on the assumption that they were going to get money at the old rates. Having entered into the contract for a year, the price of money goes up by 1 per cent., and they find themselves bound, on the one hand, to Germany, and handicapped on the other hand by financiers at home. I am not surprised to hear cheers from the other side of the House of statements that we may have to muzzle the bankers. I know that the industrialists in this country, sooner or later, will be driven to take up arms against the financiers and to apply the principles Socialism in advance in order to save their industries.
What do we find in the coal areas? We find that you have area in conflict with area and county up against county. People talk glibly about the necessity of taking 30 per cent. of the miners out of the industry and putting them somewhere else. Again, if I may ask hon. Members to exclude for the moment from their consideration the temporary difficulties about housing—they are only temporary, for when we build we build for 60 years—when they talk about taking 30 per cent. out of one industry, have they ever asked themselves where they are going to put them? Are they going to put them into

the manufacture of boots, or cotton, or what? Do not forget this, that it is not merely the workers in the coalfields who are being attacked, but capital in the coalfields is to be lost if this policy is to be pursued. It is not Socialism that is a menace to capital now, but it is capitalism which is becoming the greatest menace to capital.

If there is to be a loss of that kind it ought to be a national loss. The Labour party, when the Sankey Commission reported, pleaded for a pooling in the coal trade. We plead for that still. We contend that even the developments necessary in the coal trade cannot be conducted under private ownership. You require national ownership and national administration. I submit also—I have not time to deal with all the points on which I would like to touch—and I would like to put it to the Prime Minister, that our industries require to be organised nationally. Even Conservative newspapers have been asking for the coordination of various services required for shipbuilding.

The first step that ought to be taken is to appoint a national industrial committee of safety. We ought to have a national stocktaking of our resources of men and materials. We ought not merely to set up a pool in the coalfields, but a pool of our national wealth, and, where necessary in the national interests, we should be prepared to use national wealth to support a weak national link. I am satisfied that only along that line of cooperation and co-ordination is Britain to be saved from its present industrial difficulties.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 281.

Division No. 75.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromley, J.
Day, Colonel Harry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dennison, R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Duncan, C.


Ammon, Charles George
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Dunnico, H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Charleton, H. C.
Gibbins, Joseph


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Clowes, S.
Gillett, George M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cluse, W. S.
Gosling, Harry


Barnes, A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Barr, J.
Compton, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Batey, Joseph
Connolly, M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cove, W. G.
Groves, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Hardie, George D.
Murnin, H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, E.


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hayes, John Henry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Viant, S. P.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Weir, L. M.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Westwood, J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (Elland)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kelly, W. T
Rose, Frank H.
Whiteley, W.


Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wignall, James


Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lansbury, George
Scurr, John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawson, John James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lindley, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lowth, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor, Walter


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wright, W.


Mackinder, W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



March, S.
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maxton, James
Stamford, T. W.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Stephen, Campbell
Edwards.


Montague, Frederick
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Grant, J. A.


Albery, Irving James
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cooper, A. Duff
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Astor, Viscountess
Cope, Major William
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Couper, J. B.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Balniel, Lord
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hammersley, S. S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gansbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Harland, A.


Bennett, A. J.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harney, E. A.


Berry, Sir George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, G. J. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hawke, John Anthony


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Dixey, A. C.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Briscoe, Richard George
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Drewe, C.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Herbert, S.(York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hilton, Cecil


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Holland, Sir Arthur


Burman, J. B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Holt, Captain H. P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Homan, C. W. J.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fenby, T. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fermoy, Lord
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fielden, E. B.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Campbell, E. T.
Ford, P. J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Cassels, J. D.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forrest, W.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Jacob, A. E.


Christie, J. A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jephcott, A. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gates, Percy
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Clarry, Reginald George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Clayton, G. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goff, Sir Park
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lamb, J. Q.




Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pennefather, Sir John
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Penny, Frederick George
Steel, Major S. S.


Loder, J. de V.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Storry Deans, R.


Looker, Herbert William
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lougher, L.
Pilcher, G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Preston, William
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lumley, L. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Templeton, W. P.


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Radford, E. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Raine, W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


McLean, Major A.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Tinne, J, A.


Macquisten, F. A.
Remer, J. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rentoul, G. S.
Waddington, R.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Margesson, Capt. D.
Roberts; E. H. G. (Flint)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Watts, Dr. T.


Meller, R. J.
Ropner, Major L.
Wells, S. R.


Merriman, F. B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Rye, F. G.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Mitchell, S. (Lanark)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandon, Lord
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Savery, S. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Womersley, W. J.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Murchison, C. K.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Neville, R. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Nuttall, Ellis
Smithers, Waldron
Lieut.-Colonel Spender-clay and


Oakley, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Major Stanley.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. T. WILLIAMS rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (WIDOWS AND DEPENDANTS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. ROBERTSON: On the 26th February I put the following question to the Minister of Pensions:
Whether, in view of the large number of cases of pensioned ex-service men who have died as a result of their disability, and have left their widows and children destitute by reason of the fact that they married after discharge from the service and their
pensions ceased upon death, lie will consider the possibility of continuing payment of the pension in such cases? 
The reply I received was to the following effect:
I could not agree to this proposal. The responsibility of my Department in respect of death as resulting from war service has always been defined by the Royal Pension Warrants as limited to the man's family obligations as existing at the date of the contraction on service of the fatal disability,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1925; col. 2106, Vol. 180.]
It will be noticed that the Pensions Minister did not contend that the widows and dependents were not entitled to a pension. The statement was that it was so defined by the Royal Warrant. I am going to contend that if that be the interpretation of the Royal Warrant it is wrong, and if it be a correct interpretation, the sooner it is altered in the interests of justice, the better for the credit of this nation. Let us have clear in our minds why we pay+ a pension. What are the grounds for a pension? First, there is the physical deterioration of a normally healthy person due to war
service; secondly, the widow and dependents of the soldier who was married and had such dependants before, but not after, such disability was contracted; thirdly, when the expectation of life is cut short by disease or wounds arising from the abnormal conditions of war.
There are two classes of men, married and unmarried. I am dealing with the young men who were unmarried when they joined the Army, with all the potentialities of men. We have no right to say that when a man joined the Army he was only a person who could play the part of a soldier. He was a man, and not merely something to carry a gun, handle a bayonet, or stop a bullet. If the abnormal conditions of war rendered that man unfit, then, in my opinion, the nation was bound to support any dependants he had. I may leave myself open to the charge of using "sob stuff." I may be told that the women who married these men knew of their disability. But I think there is much to be said for the brave little woman who married the wounded and disabled man after his return from the War, and brought life and joy into his life, and gave him some outlook in life. Many of these young men were engaged to be married before the War, and when they came back they carried out their obligations.
There are three cases which I wish to put to the House. I went to see a dying ex-soldier recently. He was suffering in body, but his tortures of mind were also very great, not because of himself, but because he knew that within a week his wife and two children would have to apply for the cold comfort of the Poor Law, and would probably he advised to go to the workhouse. The second case is on all fours with that. I have here a heart-breaking letter from a young widow with three children, whose husband fought from 1914 to 1918. He was wounded, but he pulled himself together, and who will dare to say that he had no right to marry? If he felt those movings that every healthy man must feel, dare any man say that he must go to a brothel to satisfy his natural longings? But if the Government refuse to pay a pension to men of this class, that is what they are telling such young men. Here is the case of a man who fought for four years and came back and married and has three children, and a grateful
nation says to that widow and children "there is nothing for you but the workhouse." I wish to bring this down to hard logic, and I give another case of a young man who was a student. He joined up in 1914. He fought in France and on the Eastern front, and was badly wounded. He came back and resumed his education by fits and starts and he has been able to qualify for two professions. During the last two winters in order to overcome a physical difficulty he has been learning cabinet-making. He is earning his livelihood at neither of the two professions. As a result of his war service his life will be cut short. Will any one dare to say to me that a young man who fought for four years, who has proved mentally capable of qualifying for two professions and who has trained himself physically to carry out manual labour, is not entitled to a pension when his expectation of life has been cut short by war service? I hope I shall not get that answer from the Government. I am positive that I would not get it from this House, and I am still more positive that I would not get it from the country. You take into the Army a man with all the potentialities of a man. He fights for his country, and you have no right to say to his widow and children, when the expectation of life has been cut short, "There is nothing for you but the workhouse or the cold comfort of the Poor Law." I am confident that my country, if it were put to the people, would see to it that, at any rate, pensions were provided for this class of widows and orphans.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I must thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in postponing this question as long as possible, in the hope that the Minister of Pensions would be here. I have explained to him the reason why my right hon. and gallant Friend is not able to be here to-night. The hon. Member, talking about this as he has done to-night, and as he has done to me in private, has quoted the three conditions on which a pension should be granted, and he has made one statement which I think was rather, I will not say at variance with the facts, but rather a stretching of some of the conditions further than the words should be made to go. What the man was told was that
if he was wounded or if he suffered in health the country would pension him in the future. It also said to those men who were married that it would look after their dependants who were existing at that time. I do not think that anyone was ever told that any future dependants he might have would necessarily be a charge on the State, and I do not think that the hon. Member can find that in any of the warrants or any of the promises that were made at the time.
But I do not quarrel with the hon. Member's actual statement of what is a pension. Roughly, I think we all agree that a pension is a compensation, so far as one can compensate a man, for the injuries that he has received on active service fighting for the country. That is a broad general proposition to which all hon. Members will agree. I contend—and I am only reiterating what has been said pretty often before, that the State's liability towards a man is limited, so far as his family obligations are concerned, to ties which he had at the time that the injury was sustained. The whole gist of the hon. Member's speech, I know, has been to dispute that, but I submit to him that that is the principle that has always been adopted. It was adopted in the pre-War pension warrants, and it has been adopted in the post-War pension warrants.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not deny that. I say it is time it was changed.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is not only an academic distinction. After all, all schemes of compensation are based on the same principle, and I think have always been, the principle that the liability was determined at the time that the employment in respect of which the compensation is payable ceased, and it is not only this country that has adopted that principle. All our Dominions that have adopted pension schemes—and I think they all have—have in nearly every case adopted the same principle as we have done, and indeed, the pension warrants having laid down certain limits, the Pensions Minister of the day is bound to pay them out in as generous a spirit as is possible. Indeed, it is very natural that, in so far as that proportion is generously carried out, that the people outside the terms of the Pensions Warrant should wish to be brought in. In this we embark upon an
entirely new principle. You are confusing pensions for injury which has been sustained with compassionate grants. Once you get into that line, it is impossible to see where it will end. As the hon. Member knows, we have a standing example in that respect in what happened in America after their civil war. The first year or two after the Civil War pensions and expenditure—I do not like to put it in terms of money, but one is bound to do so—ran on very much the same lines as ours has done. Gradually the system was extended. Pressure was brought to bear, and more people were brought into it. The net result at the end of 50 years was that they had their pensions expenditure increased, the number of pensioners reached its maximum, and was seven times as great as it had been three years after the war ended.
The hon. Member must realise that that is a contingency which has to be faced. There is also this point. He talks—and very naturally, I quite understand—in terms of the young man who has just left the Army and got married. How long is that going to last? A man may marry at, say, 40, 50, or even 60 years, after he has left the Army—if he dies in a few months is his widow to be entitled to—

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Lord Nelson's descendents are still drawing a pension.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is an argument, and, I think, a very cogent argument, against it. There is one point that I must make, or, perhaps I should say, one way of putting it. The hon. Member has kindly talked to me about this privately, and he has said, quite frankly, that this is not a party question. I agree that it is not a party question, and I even go further and say that for a Pension Minister to claim it as a party question would be very bad for ex-service men. To show that this is not just a decision of a Conservative Minister, I want to point out that this was the ruling laid down by Mr. Barnes in 1917. I am a great admirer of Mr. Barnes, but I cannot call him a Conservative. It was continued by Mr. Hodge, and the same remark applies to him. That was in 1918. Then it was continued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), who is a Conservative, and afterwards by my right hon. Friend the
Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). It has been carried on by Ministers of Pensions, and was not even questioned by the Select Committee in 1919–1920. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. Roberts) only last year, when he was asked this particular question by Mr. Oliver, who was Member of Parliament for the Blackley Division of Manchester, said that he could not agree to the proposal; and he spoke to very much the same effect as the statement of my right hon. Friend which the hon. Member has quoted this evening.
I say frankly that when I went as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions I had a perfectly open mind on all pensions questions. I think it is advisable that one should have an open mind when one goes to a Department. I went into this question most carefully
and read up all I could about it, but with the best will in the world, and after the most careful consideration, I could not see my way to suggesting any change in this particular part of the Warrant. It would be very much easier for a Pensions Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to agree to all proposals that are made to him. It would make it easier for him.

Mr. STEPHEN: You could agree to this.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The hon. Member cannot complain that I have not done the best for him. A Minister is in a position of responsibility; he has to see both sides of a question, and to look at it very carefully—

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.